Gabriel Reyes: "The conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan has a long history, but it has now undergone a significant qualitative leap."

BarcelonaPakistan has declared "open war" in Afghanistan. It is the latest escalation of a conflict that has its roots in territorial divisions imposed during the colonial era and has become increasingly complex and multifaceted over the years. We spoke with Gabriel Reyes, a research associate at CIDOB who has extensively studied the tensions between the two countries. Reyes points out that "nothing is new."

What is the origin of the conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan?

— The current dispute reflects a historical one. It is a very complex conflict, but four layers are the most relevant. First, the existence of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a Taliban group operating on the border with Pakistan but not under the control of the Taliban government, plays a significant role. The second relevant point is the demarcation of the Durand Line, a border de facto This border, a remnant of the post-colonial era, is rejected by Kabul. It divides tribes and currently presents concrete problems such as smuggling. Also playing a significant role are the dynamics of state and non-state incursions on both sides of the border, stemming from the two points mentioned above, and the internal politics of each country. In Pakistan, the executive branch faces considerable pressure to improve internal security, with a border control narrative prominent in public discourse. In Afghanistan, there is a quest for legitimacy based on security and order, combined with the need to demonstrate that the country will not accept being treated as a territory to be operated by Pakistan.

Does the conflict between Pakistan and India have anything to do with it?

— If we abstract ourselves from the current situation to a geopolitical and geostrategic dimension, the underlying problem between the two countries is also conditioned by the dynamics of the confrontation between Pakistan and India. Pakistan is a country with very little strategic depth. That is to say, in a hypothetical military confrontation with India, Pakistan needs a rear base, which would consist of being able to operate in Afghan territory, and this, from a military point of view, translates into crossing the border.

What is Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan?

— It is a Pakistani Islamist armed insurgency formed in 2007. It operates primarily in tribal areas and its objective is to overthrow the Pakistani state and impose a strict interpretation of Sharia law. It has carried out numerous attacks in Pakistan, prompting the country to launch massive operations in the tribal regions. They share a radical Islamist ideology with the Afghan Taliban, and many TTP fighters fought against the US and NATO.

Do they have the complicity of the Taliban regime?

— There are many accusations that one side is using the other, and there has been considerable permissiveness, both from Pakistan and Afghanistan, regarding the existence of this group depending on the historical context. For example, when the TTP was created, certain Pakistani factions benefited from the destabilizing element its existence entailed. There was a degree of permissiveness, but later the TTP ended up becoming a threat to Pakistan. For the Afghan group, the Taliban and the TTP are part of the same ethnic, religious, and cultural group, making it very difficult for them to justify operations against the armed group.

In the conflict between Afghanistan and Pakistan, what is the position of each side?

— The main message here is that this isn't a one-off crisis, but rather the reactivation of a friction that has never truly disappeared. On one side, you have a state that wants to eliminate insurgent sanctuaries beyond its borders, and on the other, you have a Taliban government that either can't or won't dismantle these networks for fear of destabilizing itself. What we're seeing is that the combination of attacks on Pakistani soil, the accusation that the TTP operates from Afghan territory, and a doctrine of Pakistani incursions into Afghan territory has reignited a border that has historically been unstable. The qualitative leap, with the bombings and the declaration of "open war," indicates that we have crossed a political threshold. I believe the issue isn't just the military intensity, but rather the entrenchment of a cycle of reprisals that perpetuates the escalation.

Who has more military strength?

— There is a colossal asymmetry. Pakistan is far superior. We're talking about an army of between 600,000 and 650,000 active personnel and an air force with hundreds of aircraft. In contrast, the Afghan Taliban have, at most, 170,000 troops and face serious difficulties in using complex equipment. The fundamental difference is that Pakistan can impose a cost from the air, and it's also worth noting that it remains a nuclear state. However, it is true that the Taliban have a firm grasp of insurgency and guerrilla tactics along such a long border.

Is there room for an understanding?

— What we've seen in the last few hours isn't entirely new, because the conflict has deep roots, but it does represent a significant qualitative leap in a conflict driven by complex dynamics we've witnessed for decades. The underlying reasons for the conflict are very difficult to resolve. Relations could improve, but there are underlying geopolitical and geostrategic dynamics that are highly complex.

At the end of last year there were negotiations and a ceasefire was proposed.

— Yes, but those negotiations aimed to reduce the tension generated during 2025. They weren't focused on finding structural solutions, but rather on de-escalating the hostilities that had escalated. For now, there are no negotiations to address the underlying causes of the conflict, because the roots are too deep to be reduced simply to a security issue. The risk now is that a harsher reality than what we have seen to date, especially in recent months, will become chronic.

Which international actors could intervene in the conflict?

— The only major power that could potentially appear on the map is China, but it doesn't seem to have a clear interest in taking a more active role, because past attempts at intervention haven't worked out well for them. The Asian giant has some influence over Pakistan, and not so long ago it was quite respected by the Afghans. However, it has largely kept a low profile and called for de-escalation. It's highly unlikely they will get involved, primarily due to a cost-benefit analysis.