Pakistan’s recent cross-border strikes were driven by necessity. The situation had reached a point where Pakistan could no longer rely on restraint as a response to continuing attacks planned and launched from sanctuaries across the Afghan border. With repeated assaults targeting Pakistani civilians and security personnel, there was no practical option left but to act. The decision was compelled by circumstances rather than choice.
The region, including Afghanistan, and the wider international community need to recognise this reality. Pakistan’s action reflects serious and legitimate security concerns that must be acknowledged and addressed. The threat posed by Fitna al Khawarij must be treated as immediate and real. Containing and dismantling this threat is not Pakistan’s responsibility alone. It also requires meaningful action from the Afghan authorities and from all states seeking lasting stability in the region.
The strikes were not symbolic. They were based on intelligence and carried out against specific targets linked to Fitna al Khawarij and ISKP elements operating from sanctuaries across the Afghan border. The locations hit were identified as camps, staging areas, and leadership hideouts used to plan and direct attacks inside Pakistan.
The operation was carefully targeted. It was carried out in response to a series of attacks that resulted in the loss of civilian and security personnel’s lives. The objective was clear: to disrupt and weaken networks that were planning and facilitating violence against Pakistan from across the border. The strikes were not directed at Afghan civilians or Afghan security forces. Pakistan’s position is that claims suggesting civilian sites or sacred places were targeted are incorrect. These groups have a record of operating from within populated areas and of assigning religious labels to compounds used for training, shelter, and planning. The same actors have attacked mosques, imambargahs, markets, and schools in Pakistan. Pakistan maintains that it cannot invoke religious protection for armed activity.
Pakistan has repeatedly raised the issue of cross-border sanctuaries with the authorities in Kabul. It has asked for verifiable steps against these networks. Diplomatic channels were used, including engagements in Doha and Istanbul, facilitated by Qatar and Turkiye. The camps and facilitation lines, however, remained in place. Sovereignty cannot mean allowing armed groups to launch attacks into a neighbouring country.
Every state has the right to treat sustained hostile information campaigns as a serious security threat and respond to them as part of its defence strategy.
It is also wrong to suggest that Pakistan is shifting blame outward. The internal campaign has been extensive. In 2025 alone, Pakistan carried out 75,175 intelligence-based operations across the country, an average of 206 per day. In those operations, 2,597 terrorists were killed. Hundreds of civilians and security personnel lost their lives. The cross-border factor adds to the threat. It does not replace domestic action.
Along with terrorism, Pakistan faces another threat known as post terrorism. When society begins to unite against terrorism, it is targeted through post terrorism. When terrorists complete their attacks, post terrorists enter the field. The question is whether society fully understands post terrorism and its destructive impact.
In terms of damage, post terrorism can be more dangerous than terrorism itself. Terrorism causes visible destruction, while the damage caused by post terrorism is often invisible. Terrorism targets human lives. Post-terrorist attacks, human thought and perception. Terrorism takes away social peace and happiness, while post terrorism deprives society of intellectual and social focus. Terrorists use bombs and weapons, whereas post terrorists use media and information channels as their tools. Whenever a terrorist incident occurs, post terrorism quickly becomes active. The first step is to create confusion in society and redirect the discussion away from the real issue. The conversation is shifted in a way that prevents society from reaching national unity.
Pakistan must maintain national focus in the fight against terrorism. Post terrorism is as dangerous as terrorism itself. Armed terrorists and information warfare actors pose equal threats. Countering terrorism requires countering post terrorism as well. It is important to understand that post terrorism also involves coordinated social media networks, including accounts operating from hostile information ecosystems. These networks help set narratives and trends as part of organised information campaigns.
Sovereignty is not limited to physical territory alone. Modern sovereignty also extends to cyberspace. If organised information warfare is used against a state, it may be considered a form of aggression under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which addresses threats against state sovereignty. Every state has the right to treat sustained hostile information campaigns as a serious security threat and respond to them as part of its defence strategy.
The writer is a lawyer and author based in Islamabad. He tweets @m_asifmahmood