Pakistani airstrikes inside Afghanistan’s eastern provinces have again pushed the region toward a dangerous edge, with Afghan authorities reporting civilian deaths after strikes hit residential areas and a religious school in Nangarhar and Paktika. Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defence condemned the attacks on civilian spaces, including homes and religious sites, stating that the strikes caused multiple deaths and injuries among non-combatants and violated international norms and the principles of state sovereignty.
Afghan officials and local humanitarian sources reported that Pakistani airstrikes hit a residential compound in Behsud district near Jalalabad in Nangarhar province, resulting in civilian casualties. More than a dozen civilians were reported killed, with others wounded or missing. Local accounts identified those reported killed as Shahabuddin (80), Sherkat son of Shahabuddin (30), Sherwal (15), Fakhr Alam (12), Noor Alam (10), Mir Alam (8), Farisha (17), Khadija (15), Marwa (6), Muhmanda (40), Bibi Rawza (30), Nazim (16), Shams Sharakat (14), Aftab Sharakat (10), Basit Sharakat (5), and Muhammad Sharakat (1). Afghan officials also reported additional strikes in Paktika province, including Marghai village in Barmal district, where a madrasa, a mosque, and nearby homes were struck. Copies of the Quran were reported damaged at the mosque site. Afghanistan’s defence authorities described all casualties as civilian and said the strikes constituted a violation of Afghan sovereignty. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), in a statement issued on February 23, 2026, confirmed credible reports of civilian casualties from overnight airstrikes conducted by Pakistani military forces late on February 21 into the early hours of February 22.
The strikes come amid fragile diplomatic progress aimed at de-escalating longstanding border tensions. In October 2025, following deadly cross-border clashes, Qatar and Turkey mediated a ceasefire agreement announced on October 19 in Doha, later extended through talks in Istanbul. More recently, on February 17 and 18, 2026, Saudi Arabia facilitated the release of three Pakistani soldiers captured by Afghan forces during those clashes, framing the handover as a goodwill gesture in observance of the onset of Ramadan. Conducting large-scale airstrikes within days of that prisoner release and at the start of Ramadan represents a clear disregard for these mediation gains. It undermines confidence in regional peace mechanisms, signals a preference for unilateral military action over sustained dialogue, and risks entrenching a cycle of retaliation rather than fostering verifiable de-escalation. It also erodes trust in third-party facilitators such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia while complicating prospects for broader cooperative frameworks essential to addressing mutual security concerns along the Durand Line.
These strikes also reflect Pakistan’s broader pattern of exporting internal instability. Longstanding grievances and governance failures in the former Federally Administered Tribal Areas remain unresolved. Rather than addressing them through political and institutional means, Islamabad appears to be externalizing the crisis through cross-border military action. Such a strategy does not eliminate threats; it relocates them, often at the cost of civilian lives in neighboring states.
By repeatedly resorting to airpower across the border, Pakistan risks positioning itself as a destabilizing force in the region. Military escalation in place of diplomacy hardens public sentiment, invites retaliation, and increases the likelihood of broader confrontation. This is particularly dangerous in a region already burdened by fragile political systems, economic stress, and humanitarian vulnerability.
The consequences extend beyond the region. When security policy relies on opaque military decisions and expanding justifications for the use of force, it weakens institutional accountability and normalizes impunity. The same logic that permits civilian casualties across the border erodes democratic oversight at home, reinforcing the cycle of instability that Pakistan claims it seeks to control.
Afghanistan’s sovereignty is not negotiable, and cross-border strikes that kill ordinary civilians represent a direct challenge to that principle. The deaths reported in Behsud and the strikes in Paktika are not abstract statistics. They represent the destruction of families and communities. They also signal a troubling trajectory, one in which Pakistan’s actions increasingly appear less about security and more about coercion, escalation, and the projection of force beyond its borders.
Peace in this region cannot be built through the bombing of homes or the targeting of civilian spaces. It requires addressing internal grievances, respecting international norms, and prioritizing diplomacy over militarization. Until that shift occurs, incidents like those in Nangarhar and Paktika will continue to be seen not as defensive operations but as actions that threaten regional stability, violate sovereignty, and inflict irreversible human costs on innocent civilians.