Pakistan Suspends Afghanistan Airstrikes During Eid Holiday

On March 18, 2026, Pakistan's Information Minister Attaullah Tarar announced a "temporary pause" in military operations against Afghanistan, timed to the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr [1]. Hours later, the Taliban government confirmed it would reciprocate. The five-day window — running from midnight Thursday through midnight Tuesday — arrives after nearly a month of the most intense fighting between the two nuclear-armed neighbor and its war-hardened counterpart in modern history, a conflict that has killed hundreds of people, displaced over 115,000, and drawn global condemnation [2][3].

But the pause comes with a caveat that underscores its fragility. "In case of any cross-border attack, drone attack or any terrorist incident inside Pakistan, [operations] shall immediately resume with renewed intensity," Tarar warned [1].

How It Started: The February 21 Strikes

The current crisis traces its origins to the night of February 21–22, 2026, when Pakistan Air Force jets struck seven targets across Afghanistan's Nangarhar, Paktika, and Khost provinces between 11:45 p.m. and 12:15 a.m. [4]. Pakistan's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting described the raids as "intelligence-based selective targeting" of camps and hideouts linked to Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the Islamic State – Khorasan Province (ISIS-K) [5].

Islamabad framed the strikes as retaliation for a string of deadly terrorist attacks inside Pakistan — in Islamabad, Bajaur, and Bannu — that it attributed to TTP operatives sheltering on Afghan soil [4][5]. The justification was not new: Pakistan has long accused Afghanistan of harboring TTP militants who use its territory as a launchpad for cross-border violence. In 2025 alone, violence attributed to the TTP killed more than 1,200 Pakistanis, more than double the 2021 figure [6].

The Taliban government categorically denied the allegations and called the strikes a "blatant violation of Afghanistan's national sovereignty" and a "clear breach of international law" [7].

Rapid Escalation to "Open War"

What began as targeted raids quickly spiraled. By February 26, the Taliban announced "large-scale offensive operations" against Pakistani military positions along the 2,640-kilometer Durand Line [8]. Afghan sources claimed 10 Pakistani soldiers were killed and 13 outposts captured in retaliatory attacks [8].

Pakistan's response was swift and devastating. On February 27, Pakistani warplanes bombed targets in Kabul and Kandahar — the first strikes on major Afghan urban centers — prompting Defense Minister Khawaja Asif to declare that Pakistan was now in "open war" with Afghanistan [9][10].

Source: GDELT Project

Data as of Mar 19, 2026CSV

The conflict rapidly expanded into a multi-front confrontation involving airstrikes, artillery barrages, drone operations, and ground clashes at multiple points along the border [4]. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) confirmed that at least 42 civilians were killed and 104 injured in just the first six days of fighting, with casualties caused by indirect fire and airstrikes across the provinces of Paktia, Paktika, Nangarhar, Kunar, and Khost [11].

The Kabul Hospital Strike: A Turning Point

The deadliest single incident of the conflict — and the event that likely catalyzed the ceasefire — occurred on March 16, when the Omar Addiction Treatment Hospital in Kabul was destroyed during overnight airstrikes [12].

The casualty figures remain bitterly contested. Afghanistan's Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul Mateen Qani reported 408 people killed and 265 wounded [12]. The United Nations, conducting its own verification, recorded 143 deaths — a significant figure but substantially lower than Kabul's claim [13]. The Norwegian Refugee Council reported that its staff who visited the site the following morning "found hundreds of civilians dead and injured" [14].

Pakistan "strongly refuted and rejected" allegations it targeted the hospital. Information Minister Tarar told Al Jazeera that Pakistan "only targeted terrorist infrastructure and military locations" [13]. Islamabad has characterized Afghanistan's casualty figures as propaganda designed to generate international sympathy.

The gap between the UN count of 143 and Afghanistan's claim of 408 underscores the profound difficulty of verifying casualty figures in an active conflict zone where both sides have strong incentives to shape the narrative [13].

Afghan authorities held a mass funeral in Kabul two days later, images from which circulated widely on social media and amplified international pressure for a cessation of hostilities [1].

The Humanitarian Toll

The conflict has inflicted severe humanitarian damage on a country already facing one of the world's worst aid crises.

As of early March, an estimated 115,000 people in Afghanistan and approximately 3,000 in Pakistan had been displaced by the fighting [11][14]. The Norwegian Refugee Council documented 826 homes damaged or destroyed, with 103 completely demolished. More than 20 health facilities suspended operations, and five health centers were directly damaged by airstrikes and shelling [14].

Ten Afghan provinces have been affected: Kabul, Kandahar, Khost, Kunar, Laghman, Nangarhar, Nuristan, Parwan, Paktia, and Paktika [14]. Border crossings at Torkham and Bahramcha — critical arteries for humanitarian aid — were suspended due to security concerns, strangling the delivery of assistance at exactly the moment needs were surging [11].

The World Food Programme temporarily halted food distributions. In Khost province alone, 626 children lost access to education after 21 NRC-run classes were shut down [14]. Displaced families reported losing access to clean water and medical services, with many forced into makeshift camps or unaffordable substandard shelters.

The crisis compounds Afghanistan's existing displacement emergency. More than five million returnees have been recorded over the past two years, including 2.6 million in 2025 alone, many of them Afghans expelled from Pakistan [11].

The Legal Battleground

Pakistan's cross-border campaign has ignited a fierce legal debate. Islamabad invokes Article 51 of the UN Charter — the inherent right of self-defense — arguing that the TTP's cross-border attacks constitute armed attacks justifying a military response [15][16].

International law scholars are divided. The key legal question centers on whether Pakistan can lawfully invoke the "unwilling or unable" doctrine — the argument that because the Taliban government is either unwilling or unable to prevent TTP attacks from its territory, Pakistan is entitled to act unilaterally [15].

Critics note a glaring contradiction: Pakistan has historically condemned identical justifications when used by other states. When India conducted airstrikes against targets inside Pakistan-administered Kashmir in 2019, Islamabad labeled them "acts of aggression" and violations of sovereignty. Pakistan's current actions, critics argue, mirror the very logic it once rejected [15].

The Taliban government has lodged formal complaints with the UN Security Council, demanding an end to violations, an investigation, accountability, and "full compliance with international law" [7]. However, the Taliban's limited international recognition — formally acknowledged only by Russia as of July 2025 — weakens its diplomatic leverage considerably [6].

The TTP Question: The Conflict's Root Cause

At the heart of the Pakistan-Afghanistan conflict lies a fundamentally irreconcilable disagreement over the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan.

Pakistan maintains that TTP operatives have planned and executed more than 600 attacks on Pakistani security forces from Afghan soil since 2015 [15]. The surge in TTP violence — from roughly 500 Pakistani deaths in 2021 to over 1,200 in 2025 — provides statistical evidence of a worsening threat [6].

The Taliban government's position is more complex. While publicly denying that it harbors the TTP, the Taliban shares deep ideological and historical ties with the group. The TTP emerged after 2001 from Pakistani jihadists who fought alongside the Afghan Taliban against U.S. forces. Senior Fellow Daniel Markey of the Council on Foreign Relations observes that the Taliban views the TTP as partners, not adversaries, creating a structural impasse: "Pakistan views TTP as irreconcilable enemies while the Taliban sees them as partners" [6].

A Qatar-mediated ceasefire in October 2025 temporarily halted the deadliest cross-border clashes of that year, but subsequent negotiations collapsed by year's end, with both sides accusing the other of bad faith [4][6].

Diplomacy Behind the Eid Pause

The Eid ceasefire was brokered by a trio of regional powers: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey [1][17]. All three had previously helped negotiate the October 2025 ceasefire, giving them institutional familiarity with the conflict's dynamics.

Turkey publicly welcomed the agreement, with Ankara positioning itself as a key mediator [17]. Qatar expressed hope that the pause "will pave the way for a return to a sustainable ceasefire agreement" [1]. China, which has $65 billion invested in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and deep strategic interests in regional stability, has also been conducting backchannel diplomacy to facilitate dialogue [6].

The synchronized announcements from Islamabad and Kabul suggest substantial behind-the-scenes negotiation [1]. However, Pakistan has signaled little appetite for broader talks. The Diplomat reported in March that "Pakistan's military campaign in Afghanistan is here to stay," reflecting a view within Islamabad's security establishment that only sustained military pressure will compel the Taliban to act against the TTP [18].

Can the Pause Hold?

The prospects for the Eid ceasefire evolving into a durable peace are uncertain at best.

The structural dynamics that produced the conflict remain unchanged. Pakistan continues to demand that the Taliban dismantle TTP infrastructure on Afghan soil — a demand the Taliban shows no willingness to meet. The Taliban, for its part, has signaled openness to dialogue but refuses to abandon or pressure the TTP [6].

Both sides have strong domestic incentives to resume fighting. For Pakistan's military establishment, the campaign has become a matter of national security credibility. For the Taliban, any concession on the TTP would fracture internal cohesion and undermine its claim to govern Afghan territory free of external coercion.

CSIS analyst Alexander Palmer has warned that an expanded conflict could increase threats from ISIS and al-Qaeda to broader international interests, adding a geopolitical dimension that extends well beyond the bilateral dispute [6].

India's position adds another layer of complexity. New Delhi has gradually improved its relations with the Taliban since 2021, reopening its Kabul embassy, and has been the most prominent international voice condemning Pakistan's strikes — a stance that reflects India's own long-standing rivalry with Islamabad as much as concern for Afghan civilians [6].

What Comes Next

The five-day Eid pause represents less a diplomatic breakthrough than a brief humanitarian reprieve. The conditions Pakistan has attached — immediate resumption if any cross-border incident occurs — make the ceasefire inherently brittle. A single TTP attack, whether sanctioned by the Taliban or not, could shatter it.

For the 115,000 displaced Afghans sheltering in makeshift camps, for the families who buried their dead at the Kabul mass funeral, and for the communities along the Durand Line living under the shadow of airstrikes, the pause offers a few days of quiet in what has become the most dangerous period in Pakistan-Afghanistan relations in decades.

Whether those days become the foundation for something more durable depends on whether Islamabad and Kabul can bridge a gap that has, so far, proven impossible to close: the future of the TTP on Afghan soil.