The recent peace negotiations between Pakistan and Afghanistan in Istanbul were marred by confusion, contradictory narratives, and a visible lack of diplomatic maturity. What was intended as a forum to de-escalate tensions along the Durand Line and restore mutual confidence instead turned into a showcase of mistrust, inconsistency, and missed opportunities. The way these talks unfolded reflected not only the fragility of the bilateral relationship but also a deeper problem within Pakistan's regional strategy - a lack of coordination between its military and diplomatic establishments, and an absence of coherent vision in managing one of its most sensitive frontiers.

For nearly forty-eight hours, South Asia watched the developments in Istanbul with a mixture of hope and apprehension. The talks came at a crucial juncture, following a sharp rise in border clashes that had left dozens dead on both sides and revived old suspicions about cross-border militancy. Pakistan's representatives arrived with a firm demand that Kabul take decisive action against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and prevent its members from using Afghan soil to launch attacks inside Pakistan. A temporary ceasefire, arranged in Doha on 19 October with the mediation of Qatar and Turkey, had created a narrow window for dialogue. Yet, by the time the delegations assembled in Istanbul, optimism had already been replaced by caution and a deep-seated sense of doubt.

Within hours of the meeting's commencement, varying accounts began circulating across social media platforms and news outlets. Unverified claims, political interpretations, and partisan commentary flooded the digital space, exposing the fragile nature of the dialogue. Afghan commentators accused Pakistan's negotiators of rigidity and misconduct, while the Pakistani side responded with allegations that Afghanistan was unwilling to address the TTP issue seriously or dismantle alleged safe havens. Neither side offered verifiable evidence, and the information vacuum was filled with speculation and rhetorical attacks, further poisoning an already tense atmosphere.

It soon became evident that both delegations had entered the negotiations with unrealistic expectations. The Afghan side sought written guarantees from Pakistan to respect Afghanistan's territorial integrity and refrain from violating its airspace - a demand rooted in repeated complaints about cross-border strikes. Pakistan, in turn, demanded a written commitment from Kabul to take action against the TTP and to prevent the group's infiltration into Pakistan. Given the complexity of Afghanistan's security landscape and Pakistan's own difficulties in containing the TTP within its borders, such written assurances were improbable and diplomatically premature. The insistence on formal guarantees, rather than building a gradual framework of trust, illustrated a lack of diplomatic subtlety that has long hampered Islamabad's foreign policy.

The already fragile negotiations suffered another setback when Pakistan's Defence Minister, Khawaja Asif, publicly warned that Pakistan could“obliterate” the Taliban regime if provoked. The remark spread rapidly across Afghan media, generating outrage and reinforcing perceptions of Pakistan's aggressive posture. Such statements, inflammatory in nature and undiplomatic in tone, not only hardened Afghan attitudes but also weakened Pakistan's credibility as a responsible regional actor. Diplomacy, especially when dealing with a volatile neighbour, demands restraint and patience - virtues that appeared to be in short supply during the Istanbul discussions.

At one point, reports suggested that the talks had reached the brink of collapse. The Afghan delegation, having outlined its reciprocal condition - that it would not allow Afghan soil to be used against Pakistan if Islamabad ceased airspace violations - initially received a cautious but positive response from the Pakistani side. However, after a brief recess, reportedly following a consultation with Islamabad, the Pakistani negotiators reversed their earlier position and withdrew the assurance. This sudden shift caused visible embarrassment for the Qatari mediators and cast further doubt on Pakistan's ability to maintain a consistent diplomatic line.

Eventually, through the quiet intervention of Turkish and Qatari officials, a joint statement was issued and the ceasefire extended. Yet, beneath the surface of that diplomatic face-saving gesture, mistrust remained unaddressed. The Istanbul episode revealed the limits of Pakistan's current approach to Afghanistan - one shaped by short-term tactical calculations rather than long-term strategic thinking. Islamabad's heavy reliance on coercive rhetoric, coupled with its internal divisions, has eroded its ability to project influence or secure cooperation from Kabul. The consequences of such missteps could be far-reaching.

A prolonged confrontation with Afghanistan carries serious implications for Pakistan's internal and external stability. The country already faces a multifront security dilemma - insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, unrest in Balochistan, and a fragile political environment that discourages foreign investment. An unstable western frontier only amplifies these vulnerabilities. Pakistan is striving to attract investments from Gulf nations and rebuild confidence among international partners, yet no investor will be eager to commit capital to a country perceived as entangled in endless border conflicts. Each diplomatic failure compounds Islamabad's image problem and raises questions about its capacity to balance its security imperatives with its economic priorities.

Moreover, Pakistan's oscillating and reactive diplomacy has undermined confidence among regional mediators. Turkey and Qatar, both eager to play constructive roles, were reportedly frustrated by Islamabad's inconsistent messaging during the talks. For a nation that prides itself on its strategic depth and regional importance, such inconsistencies are costly and self-defeating. The erosion of trust among allies could limit Pakistan's room for maneuver in future negotiations, not only with Afghanistan but also with other key regional players.

Moving forward, Pakistan must recognise that sustained peace along the Durand Line cannot be achieved through airstrikes, threats, or blame. It requires a policy of engagement grounded in mutual respect, credible border management, and socio-economic investment in the border regions, particularly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Winning the confidence of local populations and addressing long-standing grievances will do far more to secure the frontier than any show of force. Similarly, Afghanistan must acknowledge Pakistan's security concerns and act responsibly to prevent non-state actors from exploiting its territory.

The Istanbul talks should serve as a lesson rather than a setback. They demonstrated that dialogue, however fragile, remains indispensable, and that diplomacy must be guided by prudence rather than passion. For Pakistan, the immediate priority should be to restore coherence between its civilian and military institutions, rebuild confidence with Afghanistan through steady engagement, and focus on internal stability and economic revival. Failure to do so risks further isolation, continued insecurity, and the erosion of regional credibility. In an era when nations are judged by their ability to manage crises through dialogue, Pakistan must learn to seek strategic advantage not by threatening its neighbours, but by securing peace through consistency, dignity, and foresight.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or policy of Khaama Press.

MENAFN01112025000228011069ID1110280904