The latest admission by Pakistan that it has a secret agreement with a “foreign country” allowing drone strikes on Afghan soil should raise alarms far beyond the immediate border skirmish. This is not just another border flare-up; it signals a deeper strategic malaise, a severing of diplomatic legitimacy, and a severe mis-calculation on Pakistan’s part.
At the heart of the matter: Pakistan, at talks in Turkey, reportedly told Kabul that it could not prevent drone strikes because it is bound by the agreement. Worse: it asked the Afghan delegation to recognise its “right” to strike Afghan territory during Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) assaults.
In effect, Pakistan is seeking formal acceptance of an extra-legal use of force on its neighbour’s soil. This move unravels layers of international norms while undermining Pakistan’s own security calculus.
Why this matters: Sovereignty, legitimacy and self-defeat
Violation of sovereignty, plain and simple.
Pakistan’s admission turns the sovereignty rubric on its head. It admits that its territory is being used as a launchpad for attacks on Afghan soil. By striking secret deals and seeking their public validation, Pakistan moves from statehood towards dependency. Its refusal to name the foreign power only deepens the loss of credibility. The optics: Pakistan is not the master of its own decisions.
Legitimacy crisis for Pakistan
States that act in the dark, make secret deals and then try to force recognition of those deals are moving into the realm of client-states or proxy-states rather than independent actors. The fact that Pakistan refuses to name the “foreign country” further adds to the opacity. The optics: Pakistan is not the master of its own decisions.
Illusion of control, real destabilisation
Pakistan seems to believe that by funding or allowing drone strikes, it can control the TTP threat. But it is betting on a short-term fix when what it needs is structural reform: clearing sanctuaries, revamping intelligence, and real political will. Instead, it is outsourcing violence and in doing so, increasing the risk of escalation as evidenced by the recent border clashes and the subsequent deadlock in talks.
Deadlocked talks = greater risk of open war
Diplomatic engagements in Turkey and Qatar were meant to de-escalate after heavy fighting. But the slope is slippery. Pakistan’s demand that Afghanistan accept its unilateral rights, plus its admission of the pact, derailed the trust needed for a deal. Talks hitting an impasse now means only one thing: the next stage is non-diplomatic.
What Pakistan should actually do (but probably won’t)
Own up & name the partner
If Pakistan claims a deal binds it, then transparency becomes the minimum credibility. Let the world know who the “foreign country” is, what the pact states, and how long it lasts. Without this, the next move is simply covert escalation.
Stop outsourcing strikes; build internal capacity
If Pakistan truly faces a TTP threat, it must act legally and transparently—internally, through its own ground forces, intelligence. Resorting to drone strikes based on third-party deals only deepens dependence on those third parties.
Reframe the narrative with Kabul
Instead of demanding recognition of a unilateral “right to strike,” Pakistan should come to the table acknowledging Afghan concerns, offering verifiable guarantees, sharing intelligence, and entering a joint mechanism. Otherwise, Kabul has every reason to view Pakistan as an aggressor, and not a partner.
Prevent the next escalation
The talks in Turkey produced no breakthrough because Pakistan failed to present coherent arguments and withdrew when push came to shove. That cannot happen if war is to be avoided.
Why India, region, and global players should care
While on the surface this is about Pakistan and Afghanistan, the ripples extend much further:
- A state admitting foreign drone strikes on the neighbouring territory undermines international law norms. If this precedent is normalised, many more states will exploit similar outsized “right to strike”.
- Pakistan is aligning ever closer with external powers even as its regional credibility shrinks. This opens space for third-party rivalry, proxy dynamics, and larger geostrategic instability.
- For India and other regional players, the Pakistan-Afghanistan border is turning into a flashpoint. Already, the rivalry between Islamabad and New Delhi colours the conflict. If Pakistan appears weak or illegitimate, India may exploit the space, but that only further complicates the region and India’s global standing.
Final word: Pakistan is paying the price for its own strategy
Pakistan, that once styled itself as the master of its “strategic depth” game in Afghanistan, lies entangled in a web of deals, using drones, outsourcing violence, and demanding recognition of rights it never earned. Its credibility is plummeting, the talks that could stabilise the border are collapsing, and the only winner may be perpetual conflict.
If Pakistan does not change course, own its territory, enforce its laws, and cooperate openly with Kabul, it will find itself locked into an endless cycle of strikes, retaliation, broken ceasefires, and mounting casualties.
