Deadlock at Istanbul: A Reflection of Deeper Fault Lines

The deadlock in the Istanbul talks between Afghanistan and Pakistan underscores not merely a diplomatic failure, but a deeper crisis of trust rooted in decades of mutual suspicion and historical grievances. Pakistan’s primary demand, delivered in an assertive tone, was that Kabul take verifiable action against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Islamabad also sought formal guarantees that no attacks would originate from Afghan territory.

Moreover, Pakistan’s insistence on retaining the authority to determine whether any future assault originates from Afghan territory or elsewhere is perceived by Kabul as unilateral, accusatory, and likely influenced by external actors.

Afghanistan rejected the call for written assurances, emphasizing that the TTP issue is Pakistan’s internal matter, the same justification Islamabad has invoked over the past four decades to deflect accusations of interference. While the vast majority of Afghans maintain deep historical and emotional sentiments over territorial and ethnic grievances, there is no credible evidence that the Durand Line issue was formally raised during the negotiations.

The stalemate, therefore, reflects more than a disagreement over counterterrorism commitments; it exposes structural tensions rooted in mistrust, competing narratives, and unresolved legacies that continue to define the uneasy relationship between the two neighbours.
For Afghanistan, the Istanbul meeting was a test of diplomatic endurance. It was a chance to defend its sovereignty against external pressures while showing a willingness for pragmatic engagement.

The deadlock made one thing clear: both sides remain trapped in old strategic mindsets. Pakistan continues to see Afghanistan through the lens of threat perception and proxy politics. Kabul, in turn, interprets every demand from Islamabad as a continuation of interference and mistrust. Despite its limited leverage, Afghanistan entered the talks with a clear moral and political advantage.

By framing the TTP issue as Pakistan’s internal challenge, Kabul highlighted Islamabad’s historical role in nurturing militant networks and reinforced its own status as a long-time victim of external interference. Afghanistan’s position rests on a consistent moral logic: no country can be held accountable for militancy that originates from decades of regional manipulation, particularly when the same actors now demand guarantees.

Moreover, Kabul’s refusal to issue written commitments reflects a broader assertion of sovereignty, a clear statement that relations between neighbouring states must be based on mutual respect and equality, not one-sided demands or externally imposed conditions.
Pakistan’s approach during the Istanbul talks once again exposed the contradictions that have long undermined its Afghan policy.

While Islamabad accuses Kabul of harboring militants, it conveniently overlooks the historical reality that Pakistan itself provided ideological, logistical, and territorial support to various insurgent groups for decades, policies that ultimately destabilized both nations. Its narrative portraying Afghanistan as a sanctuary for anti-Pakistan elements is viewed in Kabul as an attempt to externalize internal failures and divert public frustration from domestic instability.

Given the repeated failures of its strategic depth policy in Afghanistan, Pakistan should have reassessed why its so-called heroes inevitably turn against it after coming to power in Kabul. Is this a grave miscalculation, or part of a deliberate, deeply flawed strategy with destructive consequences?

By insisting on unilateral verification powers and written guarantees, and aligning its actions with US interests, Pakistan appears less interested in genuine cooperation than in fulfilling its perceived obligations to Washington while preserving an old pattern of leverage, a strategy that has repeatedly backfired and fostered resentment rather than compliance.

The collapse of the Istanbul talks has also drawn regional attention, as Afghanistan and Pakistan remain pivotal to the security and connectivity of South and Central Asia. For China, which seeks stability for its Belt and Road projects and influence through the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the deadlock poses a risk to strategic investments and raises concerns over the sudden warming of US–Pakistan relations.

Iran views the situation through the lens of security and growing US involvement, while Central Asian states see it as a test of whether Afghanistan can emerge as a reliable bridge for trade and energy transit. The diplomatic impasse undermines regional confidence and emboldens external actors to exploit the vacuum. Far from serving as a platform for cooperation, the Istanbul meeting has reinforced the perception that South Asia’s conflicts continue to be driven more by suspicion, rivalry, and external influence than by a shared regional vision.

The tactics based on hostilities, warnings and threats, Pakistan has employed so far to seek a solution are impractical, and its strategy remains fundamentally unworkable. A genuine resolution will require serious engagement, a spirit of partnership rather than an attitude of imposition, and a focus on all historical facts instead of unilateral demands.

In the end, the Istanbul deadlock is not merely a diplomatic setback but a mirror reflecting decades of unresolved truths between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Genuine peace will remain elusive as long as accusations replace accountability, and historical wounds are exploited rather than healed. Both nations must recognize that security cannot be achieved through suspicion, nor sovereignty through subjugation.

Afghanistan deserves to be treated not as a threat to be managed but as a partner to be respected, an equal neighbor with shared aspirations for stability, dignity, and regional prosperity. The path forward demands honesty, not hostility; cooperation, not coercion. Only by breaking free from the habits of blame and denial can both sides transform their uneasy past into a foundation for lasting peace.

From Fireblowers to Firefighters:  The War On Terror 

Support Dawat Media Center

If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future. Support the Dawat Media Center from as little as $/€10 – it only takes a minute. If you can, please consider supporting us with a regular amount each month. Thank you
DNB Bank AC # 0530 2294668
Account for international payments: NO15 0530 2294 668
Vipps: #557320

  Donate Here