EDITORIAL: The latest exchange of fire along the Torkham and Tirah sectors, following Pakistan’s intelligence-based strikes on militant camps in Nangarhar and Paktika, confirms what had already become clear: escalation was becoming inevitable. After a string of major terrorist attacks inside Pakistan, including the Islamabad imambargah bombing and deadly assaults in Bajaur and Bannu, the state had reached the point where restraint no longer served deterrence. According to the information ministry, Pakistan’s air strikes targeted seven camps belonging to the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and Islamic State-Khorasan along the border belt, with officials claiming more than 80 militants killed. These operations were described as selective and intelligence-driven, conducted after what Islamabad says were repeated, unsuccessful attempts to persuade the Afghan Taliban administration to deny the use of its territory to anti-Pakistan groups. The subsequent claim by the prime minister’s spokesperson that Afghan Taliban forces initiated unprovoked firing along the border only underscores the volatility of the present moment. Pakistan’s response, he said, was immediate and effective, and further provocation would be met “immediately and severely”. The message is unambiguous: territorial integrity and internal security are non-negotiable. The deeper context cannot be ignored. Since the Taliban’s return to power in Kabul in 2021, Pakistan has experienced a renewed surge in cross-border militancy. Islamabad has consistently maintained that TTP elements operate from Afghan soil. In the recent Bajaur attack, which martyred 11 soldiers and killed a civilian child, investigators said the suicide bomber had links to Afghan Taliban special forces. The TTP claimed responsibility. In Bannu, a lieutenant colonel and a sepoy were martyred in another suicide attack. These are not isolated incidents; they form a pattern. No state can absorb sustained cross-border violence while its neighbour claims inability or unwillingness to act. International law recognises the right of self-defence against armed attacks. When verifiable measures are not taken to dismantle sanctuaries, the burden shifts. Pakistan’s strikes were not the opening move in a new theatre; they were a response to repeated warnings that went unheeded. The Afghan Taliban administration bears primary responsibility for the present deterioration. Public assurances that Afghan soil will not be used against other states have little value when attacks continue with operational sophistication. The distinction between ideological sympathy and operational complicity becomes irrelevant to the victims of suicide bombings and ambushes. If Kabul cannot or will not restrain groups that share its historical affiliations, it must accept that its territory will not remain immune from consequences. That said, cross-border action is never a substitute for long-term stability. Military strikes can degrade capacity and send a signal, but they do not eliminate the underlying ecosystem of militancy. The risk of escalation is real, particularly when border skirmishes follow air operations. Civilian claims and counter-claims further complicate the information environment, raising the stakes diplomatically as well as militarily. Pakistan’s objective must remain precise: disrupt imminent threats, re-establish deterrence and compel meaningful action from Kabul. It cannot afford a prolonged frontier conflict. Nor can it revert to strategic patience while soldiers and civilians continue to die. The balance is narrow, but the alternative—inaction in the face of sustained attacks—is untenable. The regional dimension also matters. Afghanistan’s isolation has deepened since 2021. Economic fragility and international non-recognition have left the Taliban administration dependent on limited external channels. Continued cross-border militancy risks further alienating neighbours and hardening positions. Stability on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border is in both countries’ interests, but stability cannot coexist with impunity. For Islamabad, the strikes mark a recalibration rather than a departure. Warnings had been issued publicly. Evidence had been cited repeatedly. The decision to act was framed as a last resort. Whether it proves sufficient will depend on Kabul’s response—not in statements, but in verifiable action against groups operating along the frontier. Security is indeed non-negotiable. Responsibility, in this case, rests squarely across the border. Copyright Business Recorder, 2026