In the early morning of October 10 local time in Kabul, aircraft from neighboring Pakistan crossed the border, striking seven targets in Afghanistan, covering armed camps, bases and training bases in four major cities. The Afghan Taliban quickly confirmed the existence of airstrikes, but the key question of "whether there is a Pakistani Taliban (Bata) head dead" has always been avoided.

There is another key detail of this operation: Pakistani media explicitly mentioned that it was "assisted by the US Central Command".

As early as 2024, the head of the U.S. Central Command at the House hearing called Pakistan the "South Asian counter-terrorism core partner", even though the two countries have disagreements on some issues, the military exchange mechanism has never been broken, Pakistani officers continued to be trained in U.S. military schools, the defense officers of the two sides permanently stay in each other's camps, and even the joint training program that had been frozen has been restarted.

Compared with Pakistan's air strike on Paktika province in Afghanistan in December 2024, there was no public endorsement from the United States at that time, and the Afghan Taliban directly condemned it as "territorial aggression." This time, with the assistance of the United States, not only allowed the Pakistani army to obtain more accurate intelligence support, It is also equivalent to having a layer of endorsement of "anti-terrorism legitimacy", which is an important prerequisite for Pakistan to dare to strike deep into Afghanistan.

Although the public information only mentions the JF-17 Xiaolong and F-16 fighter jets, anyone familiar with modern air combat knows that this kind of precision strike is inseparable from the support of "air eyes" and early warning aircraft.

Previously, when the Pakistani army fought against the Indian Air Force, it relied on the ZDK-03 early warning aircraft to track 60 Indian fighter jets throughout the entire process, and could also guide its own fighters to launch attacks outside the enemy's radar range. In this bombing of Kabul, there is a high probability that the AWACS aircraft will take off first to clear the airspace threat, and then let the fighter jets approach and drop bombs after confirming that there is no air defense risk.

Contrary to the Afghan Taliban, the so-called "air defense high alert" is more like a rolling-up gesture, in their hands only U.S. manufactured missiles and 23 mm high-speed rifles, last December with an A-29 strike aircraft, was also shot down by the Pakistani army's FM-90 air defense system.

In the face of Pakistani systematic air strikes, the Taliban has no capacity at all, which is also the second point in which the Pakistani army dares to reassure itself in depth.

You know, in March 2024, when Pakistan airstrikes in Khost Province, only eight civilians were killed. The Taliban immediately summoned the Pakistani charge d'affaires to strongly condemn them and also launched a retaliatory attack. In December of the same year, the bombing resulted in 51 casualties. After the Taliban directly characterized it as an "act of aggression." However, in the face of the attack on the capital this time, the Taliban did not retaliate.

The core reasons are three: the first is that the Pakistani army this strike precisely avoided civilian areas, did not cause innocent casualties, so that the Taliban can not find a "backpoint of public opinion to launch a counterattack", if the rebels start to retaliate, instead will be accused of "asylum terrorist organization".

Second, in September, the foreign ministers of China, Russia and Pakistan issued a joint statement, emphasizing "respecting Afghanistan's sovereignty and promoting regional stability." If the Taliban intensify conflicts at this time, they will fall into international isolation.

Most importantly, a public counterattack would mean an indirect acknowledgment of ¡°Bata¡¯s hiding in Afghanistan,¡± which would further question the international community¡¯s governance capabilities and could even create more external pressure.

In the final analysis, behind Pakistan's "tough stance" this time, it has calculated the reactions of all parties: the United States needs to use Pakistan's troops to stabilize the anti-terrorism situation in South Asia and will not oppose it; the Taliban are limited by strength and diplomatic environment and can only endure this tone; neighboring countries are more concerned about "whether the Bata threat can be contained" rather than worrying about the details of "territorial crossing." This precise and measured judgment reflects its strategic considerations better than a simple military strike.

After all, several conflicts in 2024 have proved that recklessness will only trigger chain retaliation, and precise strikes with "intelligence support + external collaboration + risk prediction" are Pakistan's real confidence.