Estimated reading time: 11 minutes

Taliban Snapping at Pak’s Heels, Asim Munir Falls Back on Anti-India Posturing

October 2025 has turned tense along the Pakistan, Afghanistan border. Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban are trading blows after a string of strikes and raids. Pakistan’s army chief, General Asim Munir, is also using sharp language about India to signal deterrence and shore up support at home.

Here is the core picture. Pakistan carried out airstrikes in Kabul, Khost, Jalalabad, and Paktika in early October, saying it hit Pakistani Taliban, also called the TTP. The Afghan Taliban fired back at Pakistani border posts. Fighting flared around Spin Boldak, a key crossing near Chaman. Pakistan said its strikes were precise, yet reports point to civilian harm and damage near Taliban compounds. Munir warned of a strong response if provoked, and framed it in a nuclear setting. Pakistan’s defense minister also said Afghanistan had become a proxy of India. This guide breaks down what changed on the ground, why the talk is getting hotter, and what to watch next.

Pakistan vs Taliban in October 2025: what changed on the ground

The border heated up fast in the second week of October. Pakistan said it launched strikes against TTP targets inside Afghanistan. Kabul said the strikes hit built-up areas and caused civilian casualties. The Taliban responded with fire along the border. Local sources reported heavy clashes near the Spin Boldak crossing.

Regional outlets and international media described a rapid back and forth. A timeline helps:

• Early hours of October 9, reported Pakistani strikes hit Kabul, Khost, Jalalabad, and Paktika, aimed at the TTP. A concise summary appears on the 2025 Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict page.
• October 11 to 12, fierce fighting was reported between Taliban units and Pakistani security forces across several border sectors, with claims of dozens killed. Radio Free Europe has details on the drone strikes and follow-on clashes in its report, Kabul Accuses Pakistan Of Launching Deadly Strikes.
• Through October 12 to 18, both sides traded claims about casualties and control of posts. Al Jazeera’s coverage of border casualties noted shelling and fire near key crossings.

Pakistan’s military described the operations as precise and intelligence-led. Taliban officials called them violations of sovereignty. The truth on the ground appears mixed, with both military sites and civilian areas affected.

Airstrikes in Kabul, Khost, Jalalabad, and Paktika targeting the TTP

In early October 2025, Pakistan launched air and drone strikes into Afghan territory. The stated goal was to hit TTP hideouts and disrupt planned attacks inside Pakistan. Reports say one target in Kabul aimed at the TTP leader, Noor Wali Mehsud. He later released audio saying he was alive.

The TTP is the Pakistani Taliban, not to be confused with the Afghan Taliban that governs in Kabul. Pakistan designates the TTP as a terrorist group. The group has carried out deadly attacks inside Pakistan for years. The strike narrative and the Noor Wali angle were reported by multiple outlets, including the Washington Post’s piece on evolving ties, Pakistan confronts a new reality.

A snapshot of locations and targets:

These details line up with early accounts compiled on the 2025 Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict page.

Taliban response along the border and clashes near Spin Boldak

The Afghan Taliban answered with fire at Pakistani positions. Fighting erupted at multiple points, with the heaviest reports around Spin Boldak. That crossing is a major artery for goods, fuel, and daily labor. Each side blamed the other for starting the violence. Pakistan pointed to precision strikes on TTP-linked sites. Taliban officials accused Pakistan of hitting civilian areas and defended their response.

Media reports described a seesaw fight over small posts and road chokepoints. RFE/RL’s account of October 11 to 12 said the clashes left dozens dead and unsettled the frontier. Al Jazeera’s casualty roundup cited both sides claiming large losses inflicted on the other, while locals reported damage to compounds and homes.

TTP vs Afghan Taliban: how the difference shapes Pakistan’s risk

The TTP, or Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, is a separate group from the Afghan Taliban. The TTP targets Pakistan, aims to topple the Pakistani state, and operates from hideouts across the border. The Afghan Taliban runs the government in Kabul, fights Islamic State Khorasan Province, and seeks control over Afghan territory.

Why does this difference matter? Strikes on the TTP inside Afghanistan can pull the Afghan Taliban into the fight, even if the target is not their unit. Kabul can see such strikes as violations of its soil, which triggers border retaliation. That sets up a cycle that is hard to stop. Pakistan wants to hit the TTP and deter raids, yet each cross-border strike risks a wider clash with Afghan forces.

The split also complicates intelligence. Fighters move, switch allegiances, and blend with local communities. A strike meant for the TTP could hit a Taliban-linked checkpoint nearby, or a civilian structure next door. That possibility raises tensions fast.

Human cost and border trade shocks along the Durand Line

Civilians live and work on both sides of the line. When rockets or shells land near homes or markets, people are hurt or displaced. Reports this month point to civilian harm, especially around built-up targets and border villages. Damage near Taliban compounds can ripple out to neighborhoods close by.

Trade also takes a hit. Spin Boldak is a lifeline for trucking, fruit shipments, textiles, and fuel. When the crossing slows or shuts for hours, costs rise, food spoils, and daily wagers lose income. Truckers stuck at the gate pay more for fuel and security. Sellers mark up prices to cover losses. A single day of heavy fire can lift prices in nearby markets for a week.

Here is a simple example. A textile truck from Karachi to Kandahar relies on Spin Boldak to reach shops before the weekend. A closure for two days leads to missed sales, storage fees in Chaman, and a markdown in Kandahar to move old stock. That margin loss lands on both sides of the border and hits families who depend on that trade.

Why Asim Munir is leaning on anti-India posturing right now

Tough words about India are part of Pakistan’s standard playbook, but timing matters. With the western border on fire, the army needs cohesion at home. The message is simple. Pakistan can handle the TTP and border flare-ups, and it will answer any provocation from India.

This kind of talk serves two uses. It deters an eastern flare-up while resources are tied down in the west. It also rallies support across political lines. Many Pakistanis still see India as the core threat. Speaking to that fear strengthens the army’s hand during a difficult border fight.

Key lines from Munir on India, the TTP, and nuclear deterrence

General Asim Munir has warned that Pakistan would respond decisively if pushed. He has framed the moment as one in a nuclear setting, where there is no room for miscalculation, and yet Pakistan would respond much beyond the expectations of the initiators if hostilities start. Coverage in The Hindu and NDTV captures this stance. The message links threats from India and proxy groups to a single deterrence frame.

Another report highlighted his warning about shattering India’s sense of geographical immunity if Pakistan is drawn into a wider fight. The New Indian Express carried this angle in, ‘Will shatter India’s geographical immunity,’ warns Pak Army chief Asim Munir.

The “proxy of India” claim and what it signals

Pakistan’s defense minister, Khawaja Asif, said Afghanistan has become a proxy of India. He added that Pakistan could not stick to past relations with Kabul. The line shifts blame outward, raises public pressure on the Taliban government, and sets the stage for more cross-border action.

This claim does more than sting. It paints the Afghan Taliban’s tolerance of the TTP, or inability to rein it in, as part of a broader plot. Tie that to India, and the government turns a border fight into a national security cause that sits above daily politics. It gives cover for raids, tighter border controls, and tough talk aimed at Delhi. Coverage of the anti-India framing appears in NDTV’s report on Munir’s rhetoric.

Domestic pressures on the army and the need to rally support

The army faces a hard mix, from TTP bombings to border shootouts to strained budgets. Each week of fighting exposes gaps in intelligence, air cover, or coordination with local forces. Losses at border posts can dent morale and raise questions at home.

Anti-India rhetoric helps plug those holes. It unites a broad base around an old threat. It tells militants that Pakistan will not be distracted. It reminds India that eastern pressure could trigger a major response. At the same time, it masks setbacks on the western front, at least in the short run, and gives the army breathing space to adjust tactics.

The risk of focus shifting east while fighting grows in the west

There is a clear risk. If messaging toward India escalates, resources might tilt east just as the Taliban fight expands west. That could thin forces along the Durand Line or slow logistics where they are needed most. Mixed signals also raise the chance of an accidental crisis. A hot mic quote in Islamabad, a misread patrol near the Line of Control, and a border skirmish could spiral at the worst time.

Strategic clarity is key. Pakistan’s security leadership will try to keep deterrence steady in the east while avoiding a two-front crunch. That balance will decide whether this October shock passes or turns into a longer grind.

What to watch next for Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India

Here are clear markers that help track where things go from here.

Signs of de-escalation or a new round of strikes

• Pause in airstrikes inside Afghanistan.
• Fewer border raids and shelling cycles over 72 hours.
• Reports of talks between security officials, even if indirect.
• Warnings to watch: new strikes inside Kabul, Khost, Jalalabad, or Paktika, or raids on Pakistani posts after nightfall. The Economist flagged how fast clashes spread along several sectors in mid October, see its overview, Border clashes erupt again.

Border control, refugees, and economic fallout

• Crossing hours at Spin Boldak and Torkham. Shorter windows suggest higher risk levels.
• Truck backlogs. Long queues mean supply delays and price spikes on both sides.
• Reports of families moving away from frontline villages.
• Market prices for fuel, flour, and fruit in Chaman, Kandahar, and Jalalabad. Sharp changes point to trade disruptions.

Track figures from officials and aid groups, and stick to verified sources. Claims can be inflated during active clashes.

Paths to calm: talks, intelligence sharing, and outside pressure

• Quiet talks on rules of engagement near border posts.
• Intelligence sharing on TTP targets to avoid strikes that pull in the Afghan Taliban.
• Third party pressure to avoid civilian harm. Neighbors and partners can push for restraint when strikes risk dense areas.

A small step, like a hotline between sector commanders, can bring quick gains. Reducing misfires and preventing raids at night would lower the temperature.

Media narratives and public opinion inside Pakistan

• How TV and major papers frame the strikes and Taliban raids.
• Whether anti-India talk gets more airtime than updates from the border.
• Public reactions online to casualty claims from both sides.
• Opinion pieces that call for restraint or urge a hard line.

Narratives matter. If the public buys the idea of a proxy war with India, leaders will face pressure to act harder, not softer. If coverage focuses on civilian harm and trade pain, calls for de-escalation may grow.

Conclusion

Pakistan is under heat from the Taliban along its western border, and its top general is leaning on anti-India messaging to project strength. In early October, Pakistan carried out strikes in Kabul, Khost, Jalalabad, and Paktika against the TTP. The Afghan Taliban fired back at border posts, with fighting reported near Spin Boldak. Pakistan called its strikes precise, yet civilian harm was reported. General Asim Munir warned of a decisive response if provoked and framed it within a nuclear environment, and the defense minister cast Afghanistan as a proxy of India.

The smart takeaway is simple. Watch for real steps that cut raids and strikes, protect civilians, and open channels for talks. Clear signals of fewer clashes, steadier border hours, and reduced rhetoric would mark progress. Stability here is not abstract. It shapes security, prices, and daily life from Chaman to Kandahar, and it affects how far leaders on all sides push their luck.