Pakistan's cross-border air strikes on Afghanistan's capital Kabul have been silenced almost all over the world, and the top five good people of the United Nations have so far made no statements about it, and even Afghanistan itself has not reacted too fiercely.
On the evening of October 11, 2025, a conflict broke out between Pakistan and Afghanistan on the border of Kunar Province. Both sides held different opinions on the cause of the incident.
The Afghan interim government said that Pakistan shelled villages across the border, killing 23 civilians.
Pakistan's military responded through satellite images, saying that the operation was a precise strike against terrorist strongholds and did not cross internationally recognized borders. The goal was to eliminate illegal outposts that provided shelter to terrorist organizations.
Local residents in Kunar province confirmed that they heard intensive guns and many houses were destroyed, but it was difficult to distinguish the firing party.
It is reported that the conflict may be related to the armed confrontation caused by Pakistan's attempt to dismantle the border smuggling passage.
The Pakistani military subsequently announced the occupation of 19 posts in Afghanistan, 12 of which were located in disputed areas identified by the Pakistani side, and seven were identified as taliban and terrorist group joint bases.
This operation has been interpreted by military experts as a deterrent to the Afghan Taliban — Pakistan’s border has suffered 147 terrorist attacks from within Afghanistan in the first half of 2025, killing 328 people.
In the face of the Pakistani operation, the Afghan provisional government summoned the Pakistani ambassador to demand compensation for the withdrawal of the troops, although the spokesman spoke of the "iron arm response", but did not take further military countermeasures, and the overall response remained restrained.
The reaction from the international community was equally moderate.
The United Nations has only called on both sides to remain restrained and avoid escalation, and has not quantified Pakistan's actions.China and Russia have expressed concern, stressing the resolution of differences through dialogue; the United States and other Western countries have suggested keeping communication channels open, and have not issued strong statements.
Behind this collective silence lies a complex perception of the two countries’ long-standing border contradictions.
In 1893, Britain's "Duland Line" divided the Pushto settlements into two, with Afghanistan always refusing to recognize their legitimacy, while Pakistan was concerned that the border uncontrolled caused a security chaos, and the territorial dispute between the two sides has been ongoing for decades.
This situation reminds the outside world of Iran's regional situation. Iran once relied on its nuclear program, ballistic missiles and proxy network to build an "axis of resistance" in an attempt to shape regional influence.
After the Hamas assault on Israel in October 2023, Iran ordered the agency forces to intervene fully, but suffered a strong Israeli counterattack, Gaza Hamas, Lebanese Hezbollah and other agencies suffered successively.
In June 2025, Israeli airstrikes destroyed Iran’s Natanz nuclear facilities and several military bases, killing key Revolutionary Guards commanders and significantly weakening its deterrent system.
Economically, international sanctions have caused oil revenue to fall to a decade low, airstrikes destroyed energy facilities have aggravated people's livelihoods, and regional influence has fallen to a low valley.
The different situations between Pakistan and Iran reflect the differences in action logic in geopolitical games.
Pakistan's actions focus on specific security threats, target cross-border terrorism, a consensus issue of the international community, and are controlled to a limited scale without triggering large-scale conflicts.
Its long-term investment and position in the field of counter-terrorism have also given the international community a certain understanding of its security demands. Iran's strategy relies more on proxy networks and nuclear deterrence. Its direct confrontation with Israel exposed its technical shortcomings and strategic miscalculations, and ultimately fell into a passive position.
At present, Pakistan has suspended the import of dried fruits from Afghanistan, while Afghan businessmen have threatened to block Pakistan's freight channel. The economic and trade friction between the two countries has become a new focus after the conflict.
However, neither side has cut off diplomatic ties and still leaves room for consultation.
This conflict once again demonstrates that the consolidation of geographical position does not depend merely on “courage”, but rather on the precise understanding of one’s own strength, the international environment and the boundaries of action.
Both Pakistan's limited actions and the restrained response of the international community convey the consensus of resolving differences through dialogue. This pragmatic attitude makes it possible to cool down the regional situation.
On the evening of October 11, 2025, a conflict broke out between Pakistan and Afghanistan on the border of Kunar Province. Both sides held different opinions on the cause of the incident.
The Afghan interim government said that Pakistan shelled villages across the border, killing 23 civilians.
Pakistan's military responded through satellite images, saying that the operation was a precise strike against terrorist strongholds and did not cross internationally recognized borders. The goal was to eliminate illegal outposts that provided shelter to terrorist organizations.
Local residents in Kunar province confirmed that they heard intensive guns and many houses were destroyed, but it was difficult to distinguish the firing party.
It is reported that the conflict may be related to the armed confrontation caused by Pakistan's attempt to dismantle the border smuggling passage.
The Pakistani military subsequently announced the occupation of 19 posts in Afghanistan, 12 of which were located in disputed areas identified by the Pakistani side, and seven were identified as taliban and terrorist group joint bases.
This operation has been interpreted by military experts as a deterrent to the Afghan Taliban — Pakistan’s border has suffered 147 terrorist attacks from within Afghanistan in the first half of 2025, killing 328 people.
In the face of the Pakistani operation, the Afghan provisional government summoned the Pakistani ambassador to demand compensation for the withdrawal of the troops, although the spokesman spoke of the "iron arm response", but did not take further military countermeasures, and the overall response remained restrained.
The reaction from the international community was equally moderate.
The United Nations has only called on both sides to remain restrained and avoid escalation, and has not quantified Pakistan's actions.China and Russia have expressed concern, stressing the resolution of differences through dialogue; the United States and other Western countries have suggested keeping communication channels open, and have not issued strong statements.
Behind this collective silence lies a complex perception of the two countries’ long-standing border contradictions.
In 1893, Britain's "Duland Line" divided the Pushto settlements into two, with Afghanistan always refusing to recognize their legitimacy, while Pakistan was concerned that the border uncontrolled caused a security chaos, and the territorial dispute between the two sides has been ongoing for decades.
This situation reminds the outside world of Iran's regional situation. Iran once relied on its nuclear program, ballistic missiles and proxy network to build an "axis of resistance" in an attempt to shape regional influence.
After the Hamas assault on Israel in October 2023, Iran ordered the agency forces to intervene fully, but suffered a strong Israeli counterattack, Gaza Hamas, Lebanese Hezbollah and other agencies suffered successively.
In June 2025, Israeli airstrikes destroyed Iran’s Natanz nuclear facilities and several military bases, killing key Revolutionary Guards commanders and significantly weakening its deterrent system.
Economically, international sanctions have caused oil revenue to fall to a decade low, airstrikes destroyed energy facilities have aggravated people's livelihoods, and regional influence has fallen to a low valley.
The different situations between Pakistan and Iran reflect the differences in action logic in geopolitical games.
Pakistan's actions focus on specific security threats, target cross-border terrorism, a consensus issue of the international community, and are controlled to a limited scale without triggering large-scale conflicts.
Its long-term investment and position in the field of counter-terrorism have also given the international community a certain understanding of its security demands. Iran's strategy relies more on proxy networks and nuclear deterrence. Its direct confrontation with Israel exposed its technical shortcomings and strategic miscalculations, and ultimately fell into a passive position.
At present, Pakistan has suspended the import of dried fruits from Afghanistan, while Afghan businessmen have threatened to block Pakistan's freight channel. The economic and trade friction between the two countries has become a new focus after the conflict.
However, neither side has cut off diplomatic ties and still leaves room for consultation.
This conflict once again demonstrates that the consolidation of geographical position does not depend merely on “courage”, but rather on the precise understanding of one’s own strength, the international environment and the boundaries of action.
Both Pakistan's limited actions and the restrained response of the international community convey the consensus of resolving differences through dialogue. This pragmatic attitude makes it possible to cool down the regional situation.