Will the New Year bring any solace to the war-torn Afghanistan? Who will play a critical role to ensure peace in the coming year? Will Taliban hold on for another year or buckle down under pressure from the US and its allies in Afghanistan? These questions will depend upon the nature of the insurgency, type of intelligence operations, reactions of inside actors and locus of control of external players in the region. The current talks are happening behind the façade of war. These peace overtures are taking place at a critical time when Afghanistan is probably facing the toughest resistance from insurgents and is constantly in the throes of bomb blasts, Improvised Explosive Device (IED) attacks, frequent gun battles and suicide explosions. According to United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), a total number of 3565 civilians were injured, and 1601 were killed in first six months of 2016. Most of these deaths and injuries resulted from ground attacks (38 percent), IEDs (17 percent) and complex suicide attacks (20 percent) respectively. These incidents were mainly concentrated in southern, eastern and central regions of the country. The United States of America has also accelerated aerial bombardment along with CT surgical strikes in the country. Since 2001, total Afghan war causalities stand beyond 104,000 civilians and military officials combined. Since August 2016, more than 30,000 civilians have died as a result of the war. The majority of these casualties occurred due to unsafe roads and improper health facilities. A cumulative effect of war is also observed on poverty, poor sanitation, environmental degradation, malnutrition and violence against women. The peace process in any war-torn country involves internal and external actors along with an environment which sets the tone for negotiations. The process for achieving peace is not static in nature but has a high fluidity and dynamism attached to it. The latter is dependent upon creating a favourable opportunity, finding a middle ground for mutual agreement and showing the sincerity of actions initiated by actors involved. The Taliban have been demanding three things; firstly, the removal of their names from terrorist lists and ending sanctions against them. Secondly, the release of various Taliban affiliates languishing in the US and the Afghan jails who are subjected to routine brutal treatment. According to a UN report released in 2016, nearly one-third of total 800 Taliban-linked detainees are facing a tough situation in Afghanistan. The Guantanamo Bay facility at Cuba houses approximately 60 inmates with majority affiliated with Taliban-associated insurgency. The figure has been gradually reduced from a total number of 779 detainees at the controversial facility. Thirdly, complete withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghan soil. The Afghan government has been trying to goad Taliban leadership to join negotiation process for a permanent political settlement to end the decade-long insurgency. A growing incompatibility of objectives has strained relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. A regional troika is emerging with Afghanistan, India and Iran as its main components. The recent Heart of Asia conference in India has exemplified this notion where Pakistan was completely isolated without any meaningful involvement. Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS) has been conducting operations on Pakistani soil. The emergence of new faces in Armed Forces and Intelligence Agencies in the region may have a considerable shift in their thinking in 2017. The intelligence agencies networks can converge on a common point which qualifies for mutual acceptability and position. The contours of such strategic compromise must have the win-win situation for all actors. Otherwise, we shall observe a similar tit-for-tat intelligence action across the borders. The newly elected US president has brought two things with him. First, he shall see global war zones as black spots for business prospects. Second, CIA shall have a greater operational leverage under his command. The United States wants to consolidate its position through initiating a stabilisation process so that effective transnational counter-terrorism measures can be sanctioned to mitigate cross-border jihadi movement. The recent nuclear agreement with Iran will also be utilised to enhance border patrolling and boosting security measures to restrict these instances. Furthermore, the policy of Al Qaeda of creating unmanned and ungoverned spaces through rift manipulation between various regional actors should also be stopped. Such free battlegrounds provide unhindered training facilities to the insurgents on one hand and camouflage the actual intention of Al Qaeda’s top command on the other. The Chinese government has two main interests in the peace negotiations. First, it wants to limit the Islamisation process in its hinterlands and wants to share intelligence through Taliban for pinpointing main Uighur culprits involved in terror activities in Xinjiang and Taoyuan regions. Second, China is interested in regional development since its strategic economic thinking aims at tagging along regional improvement for national prosperity. A recent Chinese economic document shows that the top leadership has earmarked North Korea, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and Guinea as high-risk countries. The new economic policy delves upon rehabilitating these disturbed areas through mediation, consultation and financial support. Pakistan has its own priorities bordering on securing its urban and rural areas from terrorist attacks. The Operation Zarb-e-Azb in North Waziristan and its success depends upon a lasting and durable agreement between Taliban and the Afghan government. Any truce between the parties will squeeze operational space for terrorists in the region. It will also curb the IS phenomenon in the borderlands of Af-Pak region. Lastly, Pakistan needs economic investment, and China is the biggest foreign investor who is doling out billions of dollars in different sectors in Pakistan. The success of these peace talks, therefore, pivots around finding a mutual ground of understanding to reach a final agreement. There will be a lot of accusations and counter accusations before the parties will finally come towards the actual issues. Each side will be facing immense pressure not to concede an inch on their demands. Nonetheless, everyone can visualise lurking dangers if they fail to concur on an arrangement. The Afghan government is reeling under the recent Taliban attacks, whereas Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada is eying at IS as an existential threat to the insurgency. Hizb-e-Islami, a Sunni Islamic Afghan group having a strength of approximately 1500-4000, has also signed a deal with Afghan government which will put extra pressure on Taliban to urgently look for a common peace platform. Recently, the United States of America has started conducting drone attacks in Afghanistan on permanent basis — another point of concern for Taliban insurgents. With the next round of talks due in the near future, all stakeholders are keeping their fingers crossed. Since the talks have been labelled as Afghan owned and Afghan led initiative, therefore, Dr Ashraf Ghani and his administrative paraphernalia have greater responsibility and must show magnanimity on critical issues. Taliban and its leadership will have to reconsider its strategic options through careful calibration of national and regional realities. The US will have to conduct another surgical strike for Taliban top leadership elimination and nominate a favourable non-Kandahari Taliban commander to subdue the insurgency. The IS phenomenon may also be used to defeat the insurgency in Afghanistan. This, of course, cannot be done without the cooperation of Pakistan. The writer is the Senior Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Lahore