Afghan Taliban See Popularity Boost Over Pakistan Clashes, But Governance Faces Fragile Future
The intense military confrontations between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan in October 2025 marked the most significant armed escalation between the two neighbors since the Taliban’s return to power in mid-2021. While the violence shattered a fragile peace and brought severe economic hardship, early analysis suggests the external conflict provided the ruling Islamic Emirate with a powerful, if tragic, domestic political opportunity. By adopting a firm, unified military stance against a regional power, the Taliban leadership may have momentarily overshadowed deep-seated internal governance challenges and galvanized popular support against a perceived external adversary.
Economic and Humanitarian Fallout of the Border Shutdowns
The immediate, tangible consequence of the military clashes, which began after Pakistani airstrikes targeted TTP leadership in Kabul and other provinces on October 9, 2025, was the abrupt closure of major border crossings. This action severely impacted the economies and daily lives of millions dependent on cross-border movement and trade. This hardship, while primarily borne by the populace, created another avenue through which the Taliban could be judged—and potentially garner support based on their management of the crisis fallout.
Disruption of Trade and Regional Commerce
The fighting and subsequent border closures paralyzed vital trade and commerce routes spanning South and Central Asia. The paralysis of key crossing points, such as Spin Boldak-Chaman, stranded thousands of trucks carrying goods, leading to significant economic disruption across the entire region. As of early December 2025, Pakistan had officially reaffirmed a complete and indefinite closure of the border for trade, commerce, or immigration, with only sporadic, partial reopenings for refugee repatriation noted.
The economic toll on Afghanistan has been stark. According to the latest report from the United Nations Security Council, the closure of border crossings with Pakistan is estimated to cost the Afghan economy approximately $1 million per day. Since the initial closure on October 11, 2025, the country’s total losses from border blockades across all routes have reportedly exceeded $200 million. Furthermore, as 70–80% of Afghanistan’s trade relies on Pakistani ports and roads, the disruption has led to sharp increases in the prices of food, fuel, medicine, and construction materials across the country.
Furthermore, the border closures immediately halted essential humanitarian aid deliveries into Afghanistan that relied on Pakistan as a primary transit corridor. The Taliban’s ability to navigate this economic blockade, while presenting a significant challenge, also allowed them to shift blame for any ensuing economic hardship squarely onto Pakistan’s decision to close the frontier in response to the fighting, rather than on their own governance or refusal to meet security demands.
In a move signaling an intent to mitigate future dependency, in November 2025, Afghanistan’s Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, announced a directive to phase out Pakistani pharmaceutical imports entirely within three months. This measure, intended to shield public health from the politicization of transit routes, highlights the extreme vulnerability caused by the landlocked dependency.
The Toll on Civilian Populations and Displacement Figures
The human cost of the conflict was substantial. Cross-border violence between October 10 and 17, 2025, resulted in the deaths of 37 Afghan civilians and injuries to 425 others, as disclosed by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA). Local officials in Kandahar reported higher figures, with dozens killed and hundreds wounded during the October period alone. The fighting in Spin Boldak, for instance, led to the displacement of thousands of Afghan civilians who were forced to flee to other areas overnight to escape the intense exchanges of fire [cite: *As provided in the prompt*].
While the UN Security Council report indicates that relative stability in Afghanistan has often come at the cost of severe human rights violations and internal repression, the external violence against the border population provided a unifying, if tragic, rallying point against the perceived external aggressor. The focus on Afghan civilian casualties, as opposed to the TTP fighters Pakistan claimed to target, reinforced the Taliban’s image as the protector of the Afghan people against hostile neighbors [cite: *As provided in the prompt*]. The Taliban’s defense minister claimed that the Afghan public stood with them during the conflict.Internal Cohesion Versus External Pressure: Taliban Governance Under Strain
The popular surge hypothesis must also be considered against the backdrop of internal governance challenges and public discontent within Afghanistan over human rights issues and economic stagnation, factors that the conflict may have momentarily overshadowed or exploited. The regime’s calculus appears to prioritize projecting strength externally to secure internal legitimacy.
Divergent Voices within the Islamic Emirate’s Leadership
It is important to acknowledge that the Taliban leadership itself is not monolithic, and the external conflict has illuminated, rather than resolved, internal tensions. Reports from late 2025 confirm that some senior Taliban figures publicly voice concerns about intimidation and a growing distance between the administration and the general public, warning that internal divisions and popular alienation could weaken the entire governing system. The UN Security Council noted that while some senior figures view the TTP as a liability to Pakistan relations, others remain supportive of the group.
The recent nationwide decree issued by the Afghan *ulema* (clerics) mandating that Afghan soil not be used for attacks on other countries could ease tensions with Islamabad. However, this move also risks triggering internal divisions and power struggles, as some Taliban factions may view it as capitulation to Pakistani pressure. The strong, unified response to Pakistan was therefore likely engineered to counter these internal centrifugal forces by creating an external ‘common enemy’ to rally around [cite: *Inferred from prompt text and search results*].
The Cost of Repression Versus the Gain of Perceived Strength
The UN Security Council has highlighted that the relative stability achieved under the Taliban has been largely attained through widespread human rights violations and internal repression, particularly against women and girls. In a typical scenario, these domestic grievances would erode popularity. However, the high-stakes military confrontation with Pakistan provided a powerful narrative diversion.
By successfully executing a military response—including direct retaliation against Pakistani military posts following the initial October 9 strikes—and holding firm during subsequent negotiations, the leadership could claim that their rigorous, uncompromising system—the very system criticized for its repression—was the only one capable of securing the nation’s borders and demanding respect from a regional military power [cite: *As provided in the prompt*, 15]. This pragmatic appeal to security over civil liberties is a recurring theme in power consolidation, suggesting that the perceived gain in external strength momentarily outweighed domestic discontent regarding governance standards [cite: *As provided in the prompt*].
Prognosis for Future Stability: The Fragility of the Ceasefire Framework
The agreements reached in Doha and the subsequent attempts at consolidation suggest a shared, if reluctant, recognition by both Islamabad and Kabul that open, sustained war carries unacceptable costs—costs that both governments are ill-equipped to bear in 2025 [cite: *As provided in the prompt*]. However, the collapse of later talks in late November, following the October truce, suggests the underlying issues remain intractable.
Key Obstacles to Lasting Peace: Trust Deficit and the Durand Line Question
The core mechanisms for lasting peace depend on addressing the fundamental, centuries-old issues that fuel the conflict. Pakistan insists on verifiable guarantees that militant sanctuaries, particularly for the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), will be dismantled, while Kabul denies their existence, creating an impasse rooted in mutual distrust. The UN sanctions monitoring body has explicitly rejected the Taliban’s claim that no terrorist groups operate from its territory, calling the assertion “not credible”.
Crucially, the historical dispute over the colonial-era Durand Line, which bisects Pashtun tribal areas and has never been accepted by any Afghan government, remains an open wound. The Taliban’s continued assertion of territorial claims over Pakistani land mirrors Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir, making the border a perpetual fault line. The Taliban Defense Minister, Mullah Yaqub Mujahid, publicly referred to the line as an “imaginary border” in October 2025, stressing the issue “belongs to the nations,” which was seen as a deliberate provocation. Until a framework can credibly address the sanctuary issue without violating Afghan sovereignty, or until a political outreach strategy tempers the cycle of violence in the border provinces, the risk of low-intensity confrontation will remain persistently high [cite: *As provided in the prompt*].
The Precedent Set by Escalation and Retaliation
The October 2025 conflict established a dangerous new precedent. Pakistan’s initial kinetic action, followed by the Taliban’s direct, on-the-ground military retaliation against Pakistani military posts, demonstrated a willingness to escalate rapidly beyond the previous norms of diplomatic protest and limited strikes [cite: *As provided in the prompt*, 15]. This escalation, while possibly boosting short-term domestic support for the regime by showcasing resolve, simultaneously raises the long-term risk profile for the entire region [cite: *As provided in the prompt*].
The third round of high-level talks in Istanbul in early November 2025 ultimately collapsed, with both sides trading blame and Pakistan’s delegation leaving without a future meeting scheduled. The deadlock occurred because Pakistan demanded a written commitment or a *fatwa* from the Taliban’s Supreme Leader against the TTP, a demand the Afghan delegation rejected as outside the scope of their authority. The breakdown means the structural incentives remain for the Afghan Taliban to leverage their military posture against Pakistan for domestic political gain as long as the fundamental security and sovereignty disputes persist [cite: *As provided in the prompt*]. The cycle established—strike, retaliate, negotiate truce, re-arm, repeat—suggests that while diplomatic channels may be preserved by international mediators like Qatar and Turkey, true resolution remains distant.