World
‘New Normal’: Is Pakistan trying to set new red lines with Afghan Taliban?
Islamabad, Pakistan – When Pakistan’s foreign minister, Ishaq Dar, visited Kabul in April and met his Afghan Taliban counterpart, Amir Khan Muttaqi, analysts viewed the occasion as marking a reset of relations amid the increasing hostilities between the two former allies.
Subsequent meetings between the two in May and August, brokered by China, reinforced that sentiment.
list of 4 itemsend of listRecommended Stories
But a deadly weekend of clashes along the countries’ porous border has put those diplomatic overtures on hold. Islamabad says it killed more than 200 Taliban fighters; the Taliban government says 58 Pakistani soldiers were killed. The death toll on both sides underscores how fragile the détente earlier in the year was.
Pakistan, which has been grappling with a dramatic surge in attacks – especially in the northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, where dozens of military personnel have died – accuses the Taliban of giving sanctuary to armed groups that launch cross-border attacks.
The Taliban denies those charges. But on Thursday night, Kabul was rocked by explosions and gunfire. Pakistan neither confirmed nor denied involvement, but the Taliban government said Pakistan had been behind the attacks in Kabul and in an eastern Afghan province, and promised retaliation.
Fighting flared again on Saturday night. Pakistan acknowledged that the clashes left at least 23 of its soldiers dead and another 29 injured, and said its forces had taken control of more than 21 posts on Afghan territory. Kabul has not confirmed the Taliban’s casualty figures.
That immediate military escalation has passed, but the clashes have evoked parallels with Pakistan’s tense new equation with its eastern neighbour, India, after New Delhi blamed Islamabad for the killing of 26 civilians in Indian-administered Kashmir in April.
Like the Taliban’s position on anti-Pakistan armed groups ostensibly operating from Afghan soil, Islamabad, too, rejected any link with the attackers in Indian-administered Kashmir. But just as Islamabad has long accused the Taliban of sheltering groups that attack Pakistan, India has, for decades, alleged that Pakistan supports and sponsors “terrorist” groups that target its territory.
Now, some analysts say, Pakistan is trying to establish a “new normal” with the Taliban, by making clear that future attacks on its soil could invite retribution inside Afghanistan. The stance mirrors a position India’s Narendra Modi government took against Pakistan in April, and that Islamabad protested against at the time.
India launched strikes inside Pakistani territory in May, resulting in a four-day-long conflict, with both sides using missiles, drones and artillery to attack each other.
This shifting landscape between Pakistan and Afghanistan suggests, analysts say, that while the fighting over the weekend might have eased, tensions are likely to simmer in the coming weeks, and a lasting breakthrough remains elusive.
Trigger behind the border clashes
Out of the various armed groups reportedly operating from Afghanistan, Pakistani authorities regard the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) as the biggest threat. The TTP emerged in 2007 amid the United States-led, so-called “war on terror”, and has for years waged an armed campaign against Islamabad.
It seeks to implement strict Islamic law, has demanded the release of imprisoned members, and calls for a reversal of the merger of Pakistan’s former tribal areas with the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
The TTP is independent of Afghanistan’s Taliban, but the two groups are ideologically aligned.
Islamabad blames Kabul for allowing sanctuary for the TTP, as well as other groups such as the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP).
TTP attacks have increased sharply since the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan in August 2021, and numbers highlight the increasing trend.
“Our data show that the TTP engaged in at least 600 attacks against, or clashes with, security forces in the past year alone. Its activity in 2025 so far already exceeds that seen in all of 2024,” a recent report by the US-based Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED) project said.
In the last few days, several attacks have killed more than two dozen Pakistani soldiers, including officers, with the latest such incident on October 8.
Regional powers – including China, Iran and Russia – have repeatedly urged the Taliban to eliminate the TTP and other armed groups operating from Afghanistan. That call was renewed at the Moscow Format consultation in early October, which was also attended by Muttaqi, the Taliban foreign minister.
Abdul Basit, a scholar of militancy and a research fellow at Singapore’s S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said he expects more diplomacy in the coming days, led by countries that have strong ties with both the Taliban and Pakistan, such as Gulf nations or China.
“I think it is plausible that Islamabad and Kabul will hold another round of meetings in some third country to re-engage in dialogue, but I believe that tensions will continue to simmer, sometimes going up or sometimes going down. We certainly cannot rule out another round of hostilities at the border,” he told Al Jazeera.
Seema Ilahi Baloch, a former Pakistani ambassador who has been involved in informal Pakistan-Afghanistan talks in the past, said that Islamabad had so far failed to persuade the Taliban to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base for attacks against Pakistan.
“Both sides must realise that such conflicts undermine bilateral cooperation and negatively impact regional stability,” she said. “China, which has influence in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, can be the interlocutor to mend fences between the two through diplomacy,” she added.
Islamabad’s new normal?
Still, analysts say it is becoming increasingly difficult for Pakistan’s officials to ignore the mounting death toll in the country from attacks that Islamabad alleges have originated in Afghanistan.
The Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS), an Islamabad-based think tank, put the number of deaths of Pakistan’s security personnel at more than 2,400 in the first three quarters of this year, which is on track to become the deadliest year in a decade.
Basit said that Islamabad is trying to define a new normal in which any attack believed to have originated in Afghanistan – whether by the TTP or another group – will carry a cost for Kabul.
“Any attack which emanates from Afghanistan will be responded [to] with [the] same ferocity on their territory, with Pakistan implying that Afghan Taliban are facilitating such attacks in Pakistan, and thus are legitimate targets,” he said.
Basit acknowledged that Pakistan’s new approach appears similar to what New Delhi adopted against Islamabad after the April attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, but said there was a key difference. Regardless of the casualties on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border during the past weekend’s clashes, the military asymmetry between the two sides is significant, unlike the scenario between India and Pakistan.
He pointed to Pakistan’s ability to hit back against India’s attacks in May: Pakistan was able to shoot down several Indian jets in the process. The Taliban, however, though battle-hardened fighters who have a long history of repelling foreign powers, do not have the equipment and training that Pakistan’s professional army does. “There is a difference,” Basit said.
Aamer Raza, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Peshawar, said there was a growing feeling within Pakistani policy circles that patience with Afghanistan was wearing thin in the Pakistani establishment.
“Although some engagement is inevitable, major breakthroughs shouldn’t immediately be expected. With Pakistan’s clear superiority in air and projectile warfare, even in the last clashes, it could have inflicted greater damage on Afghanistan, but it largely refrained,” he told Al Jazeera.
After the weekend clashes, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for the first time, also questioned the legitimacy of the Taliban government itself, even though Islamabad was the movement’s chief patron for a quarter of a century.
Pakistan demanded “concrete and verifiable actions against these terrorist elements by the Taliban regime” and urged a more inclusive government. “We also hope that one day, the Afghan people would be emancipated, and they would be governed by a true representative government,” the statement read.
Baloch, the diplomat, downplayed that language, suggesting that Islamabad was merely calling for elections in Afghanistan.
Basit, however, argued that the wording was significant. “This language of the statement also hints that Pakistan might be open to the idea of throwing its support behind anti-Taliban groups if the current regime continues to ignore Pakistan’s legitimate security concerns,” he said.
The New Delhi factor
The weekend’s clashes also coincided with Muttaqi’s first visit to India. He is, in fact, the first senior Taliban leader to travel to New Delhi since the group took control of Afghanistan four years ago.
Muttaqi received a temporary United Nations-sanctions exemption to travel for a week, from October 9 to 16, and met Indian Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar.
Kabul’s moves towards New Delhi also represent the culmination of months of diplomacy that Pakistan has watched closely.
From the mid-1990s until a few years ago, India viewed the Taliban as a proxy for Pakistan’s intelligence agencies, and accused the group and its allies of deadly attacks on its diplomatic missions in Afghanistan.
But since the group returned to power in Afghanistan, and amid rising Taliban-Pakistan tensions, India has engaged in a series of outreach efforts with Kabul’s new leaders, leading to Muttaqi’s visit.
Islamabad continues to allege that New Delhi is fomenting trouble in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan provinces, and that some groups are funded or supported by New Delhi from Afghan territory, charges that India has consistently rejected.
Now, with tensions on both its western and eastern fronts, Islamabad needs to stay cautious, said Baloch, the former ambassador.
“No country can afford to open war fronts on all its borders, and that goes for Pakistan also,” she said.
Meanwhile, some analysts have questioned Pakistan’s posture of neither accepting responsibility for last Thursday’s explosions in Afghanistan, nor denying a role.
This could damage Pakistan’s credibility if groups based in Afghanistan attack Pakistan again, suggested Fahad Nabeel, who leads the Islamabad-based research consultancy Geopolitical Insights.
“The main question will be why Pakistani officials did not claim responsibility for the past alleged strikes [in Afghanistan, in response to attacks in Pakistan]. If Pakistan merely uses the terrorism-threat narrative, critics will ask why it did not take such actions in the past decade,” Nabeel told Al Jazeera.
However, Nabeel said that he did not see major parallels between India’s response to the April attack and Pakistan’s recent approach towards the Taliban. “The only commonalities,” he said, lay in both India and Pakistan accusing its neighbours, Pakistan and Afghanistan, of not doing enough to stop UN-sanctioned individuals and groups from using their soil to attack others.
Singapore-based Basit said that Pakistan’s air strikes during Muttaqi’s visit were likely intended to send a message: that “Islamabad will not hesitate to use force if it perceives collusion between Kabul and New Delhi to undermine Pakistani security”.
However, like Baloch, Basit also acknowledged the limits of that posture. “No country can afford a two-front war,” he said.
Basit also said that bigger questions about Islamabad’s approach remained unanswered.
“What really is the end game here?” he asked.
“Are these strikes going to change the calculus of [the] Afghan Taliban to pushing them into action against the TTP, or will it drive them to forge a closer nexus with [the] TTP?” he asked.
“When you use force, you are using it to achieve [a] certain goal, and the question is, what does Pakistan want to achieve with these air strikes?”
Bulgarians headed to the polls Sunday for the eighth time in five years, with anti-corruption candidate and former president Rumen Radev’s bloc tipped to win.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The European Union’s poorest member has been through a spate of governments since 2021, when large anti-graft rallies brought an end to the conservative government of long-time leader Boyko Borissov.
Eurostat data shows Bulgaria consistently ranks last in the EU by GDP per capita. In 2025, Bulgaria (along with Greece) was at 68% of the EU average.
Radev, who has advocated for renewing ties with Russia and opposes military aid to Ukraine, was president for nine years in the Balkan nation of 6.5 million people.
He stepped down in January to lead newly formed centre-left grouping Progressive Bulgaria, with opinion polls before Sunday’s vote suggesting the bloc could gain 35% of the vote.
The former air force general has said he wants to rid the country of its “oligarchic governance model”, and backed anti-corruption protests in late 2025 that brought down the latest conservative-backed government.
“I’m voting for change,” Decho Kostadinov, 57, told reporters after casting his ballot at a polling station in the capital, Sofia, adding corrupt politicians “should leave — they should take whatever they’ve stolen and get out of Bulgaria”.
Polls are forecasting a surge in voter participation, with more than 3.3 million Bulgarians expected to cast ballots according to the Bulgarian News Agency.
Voting will close at 1700 GMT, with exit polls expected immediately afterwards. Preliminary results are expected on Monday.
‘Preserve what we have’
Borissov’s pro-European GERB party is likely to come second, according to opinion polls, with around 20%, ahead of the liberal PP-DB.
“I’m voting to preserve what we have. We are a democratic country, we live well,” said Elena, an accountant of about 60, who did not give her full name, after casting her vote in Sofia.
Front-runner Radev has slammed the EU’s green energy policy, which he considers naive “in a world without rules”.
He also opposes any Bulgarian efforts to send arms to help Ukraine fight back Russia’s 2022 invasion, though he has said he would not use his country’s veto to block Brussels’ decisions.
Pushing for renewed ties with Russia, Radev denounced a 10-year defence agreement between Bulgaria and Ukraine signed last month – drawing fresh accusations from opponents of being too soft on Moscow.
The ex-president also stoked outrage online for screening images at his final campaign rally of his meetings with world leaders including Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
“We need to close ranks,” he told around 10,000 cheering supporters at the rally, presenting his party as a non-corrupt “alternative to the perverse cartel of old-style parties”.
Borissov, who headed the country virtually uninterrupted for close to a decade, has dismissed suggestions that Radev brings something “new”.
At a rally of his party earlier this week, he insisted GERB had “fulfilled the dreams of the 1990s” with such achievements as the country joining the eurozone this year.
‘No one to vote for’
Radev is aiming for an absolute majority in the 240-seat parliament.
A lack of trust in politics has affected voter turnout, which slumped to 39% in the last election in 2024.
But with Radev rallying voters, high turnout is expected this time, according to analyst Boryana Dimitrova from the Alpha Research polling institute.
Miglena Boyadjieva, a taxi driver of about 55, said she always votes, but the “problem is that there is no one to vote for”.
“You vote for one person and get others. The system has to change,” she told reporters.
Political parties have called on Bulgarians to show up for the polls, also to curb the impact of vote buying.
In recent weeks, police have seized more than one million euros in raids against vote buying in stepped-up operations.
They have also detained hundreds of people, including local councillors and mayors.
A 3-D rendering of an Iranian Shahed-136 drone, a device with two triangle-shaped wings attached to a central fuselage. It has an engine the size of a small motorcycle’s and carries 110 pounds of explosives.
Engine the size of a small motorcycle’s
Carries 110 pounds of explosives
One of the biggest takeaways of the war with Iran is that it has proven itself to be a surprisingly capable adversary against the United States. In addition to its willingness to go on the offensive, Iran has forced the U.S. and its regional allies to confront the rise of cheap drones on the battlefield.
Iranian drones, made with commercial-grade technology, cost roughly $35,000 to produce. That is a fraction of the cost of the high-tech military interceptors sometimes used to shoot them down.
Cheap drones changed the war in Ukraine, and they have enabled Iranians to exploit a gap in American defense investments, which have historically prioritized accurate but expensive solutions.
Countering drones has been a major priority for the Pentagon for years, according to Michael C. Horowitz, who was a Pentagon official in the Biden administration. “But there has not been the impetus to scale a solution,” he said.
In just the first six days, the U.S. spent $11.3 billion on the war with Iran. The White House and Pentagon have not provided updated estimates, but the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, estimated in early April that the U.S. had spent approximately between $25 and $35 billion on the war, with interceptors driving much of the cost. Many missile defense experts also fear interceptor stockpiles are now running dangerously low.
Here is a breakdown of some of the ways the U.S. and its allies have countered Iran’s drones, and why it can be so costly.
Air-based strikes
In an ideal scenario, an early warning aircraft spots a drone when it is still several hundred miles out from a target, and a fighter jet, like an F-16, is dispatched from a military base. The F-16 can then use Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) II rockets to shoot a drone from about six miles away.
A 3-D rendering of an F-16 fighter jet firing an APKWS II rocket from under one wing. Two to three rockets are fired per drone, as per air defense protocol. Two APKWS II rockets and an hour of F-16 flight cost approximately $65,000, a little less than twice that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
Two to three interceptors fired per drone
These types of defensive air patrols are cost-efficient, but haven’t always been available because of the vast scope of the conflict. Iran has also targeted early warning aircraft that the U.S. needs to detect a drone from that distance, according to NBC News.
The other option for detecting and shooting down drones is a variety of different ground-based detection systems, but these systems are all at a disadvantage, as their ability to spot low-flying drones is limited by the curvature of the earth.
Anti-drone defense systems
One ground-based defense system the U.S. and its allies have built specifically to counter drones at a shorter range is the Coyote. It can intercept drones up to around nine miles away.
A 3-D rendering of a Coyote Block 2 interceptor, which looks like a three-foot tube with small rockets at one end. Two Coyotes cost approximately $253,000 or about seven times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
The Coyote is significantly cheaper than many of the other ground-based defense systems available to the U.S. and its allies and historically effective at defending important assets. But despite being both effective and cost-efficient, relatively few Coyotes have been procured by the U.S. military in recent years.
When Iran-backed militias launched attacks on U.S. ground troops in the region in 2023 and 2024, there were so few Coyotes available that troops had to shuffle the systems between eight different bases in the region almost daily, according to a report from the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank.
Ship-based anti-missile defenses
Many of the longer-range ground-based defense systems the U.S. and its allies can use to combat drones are more expensive, as they are designed to shoot down aircraft and ballistic missiles, not drones. A Navy destroyer’s built-in radar system, for instance, can detect drones from 30 miles away and shoot it down with Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) interceptors. As in the air-based strikes, military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.
A 3-D rendering of the deck of a Navy destroyer firing an SM-2 missile from a built-in launcher, which looks like a 15-foot missile launching from a grid of openings on the ship’s surface. Two SM-2 missiles cost approximately $4.2 million, about 120 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
This misalignment between America’s defense systems and current warfighting tactics started after the Cold War, when the anticipated threats were fewer, faster, higher-end projectiles, not mass drone raids.
Iran often launches multiple Shahed-136 drones at a time, given their low price tag. The drones are also programmed with a destination before launch and can travel roughly 1,500 miles, putting targets all across the Middle East within reach.
“This category of lower-cost precision strike just didn’t exist at the time that most American air defenses were developed,” said Mr. Horowitz.
Ground-based anti-missile defenses
The Army’s standard air-defense system is the Patriot. Typically stationed at a military base, it can shoot down a drone from up to around 27 miles away with PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors. Military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.
A 3-D rendering of a Patriot launcher loaded with 17-foot PAC-3 MSE missiles, which looks like a tilted shipping container with scaffolding. Two PAC-3 MSE missiles cost approximately $8 million, about 220 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.
Patriot missile defense system
Air defense training teaches service members to prioritize using longer-range defense systems first to “get as many bites at the apple as you can,” but those are the most expensive, said Stacie Pettyjohn, a senior fellow and director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security.
But a costly defense can still make economic sense to protect a valuable target, especially those that are difficult to repair or replace, such as the nearly $1.1 billion radar at a military base in Qatar and the $500 million air defense sensor at a base in Jordan that were damaged early in the conflict.
Ground-based guns
Finally, there is what one might call a last resort: a ground-based gun. When a drone is about a mile away or less than a minute from hitting its target, something like the Centurion C-RAM can begin rapidly firing to take down the drone.
A 3-D rendering of a Centurion C-RAM, which looks like a gun mounted to a rotating, cylindrical stand. The gun fires 75 rounds of ammunition per second. Five seconds of firing the gun costs $30,000, slightly less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.
Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar
Fires 375 rounds of ammunition in 5 seconds
Even though it is fairly cost-effective, the Centurion C-RAM is not the best option because it has such a short range.
Interceptor drones
There’s also what one might call the future of fighting drones: A.I.-powered interceptor drones. Interceptor drones like the Merops Surveyor can theoretically hunt and take down enemy projectiles from a short range.
A 3-D rendering of a Surveyor drone, which looks like a three-foot tube with wings and a tail. The Merops drone costs approximately $30,000, a little less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.
Merops system: Surveyor drone
Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive, founded a company to develop the Merops counter-drone system in conjunction with Ukrainian fighters, who have already been combatting Iranian drones in the war with Russia for years.
The U.S. sent thousands of Merops units to the Middle East after the conflict began, but it is unclear whether they have been deployed. The military set up training on the system in the middle of the war, as reported by Business Insider.
Other attempts to lower the cost-per-shot ratio of taking out a drone have failed.
The Pentagon invested over a billion dollars in fiscal year 2024 researching directed energy weapons, or lasers, that would cost only $3 per shot and have a range of 12 miles. Those systems have yet to be used in the field.
Despite the cost imbalance, the real fear for many in the defense community is the depleted stockpile of munitions.
“What scares me is that we will run out of these things,” said Tom Karako, the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Not that we can’t afford them, but that we’ll run out before we can replace them.”
World
Moscow-born gunman dead after Kyiv shooting rampage leaves at least 6 dead, 14 wounded: Zelenskyy
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A Russian gunman was killed by special forces Saturday in Ukraine after opening fire at a supermarket in Kyiv, killing six people and wounding 14 others — including a 12‑year‑old boy.
The 58-year-old shooter long resided in the Donetsk region and was born in Moscow, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko.
He took at least four hostages, killed one of them, and fatally shot four others on the street, Zelenskyy said. Another woman died at a hospital from her injuries.
Graphic video captured by witnesses showed the gunman shooting at a victim within close range on the street. Other bodies were seen lying on the pavement and in courtyards.
The gunman was seen walking with a weapon on the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)
MANHUNT UNDERWAY AFTER GUNMEN STORM CHICK-FIL-A LEAVING 1 DEAD
Ukranian special forces stormed the convenience store after 40 minutes of failed negotiations, according to Klymenko.
At least fourteen people were wounded in the attack, though officials cautioned the number may rise as people continue to seek medical assistance.
Among the injured is a 12‑year‑old boy and a supermarket security guard, according to Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko.
The gunman was pictured dead in the convenience store. (Obtained by Will Stewart)
NINE DEAD, 13 WOUNDED IN SECOND TURKISH MASS SHOOTING IN TWO DAYS
Zelenskyy said the shooter also set fire to an apartment prior to the attack, though it is unclear if any injuries resulted from the arson.
“My condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims,” Zelenskyy wrote in an X post. “…We wish all the wounded a swift recovery.”
The gunman had previously been prosecuted for criminal offenses, but held a valid weapons permit, according to authorities. Investigators from the National Police and the Security Service of Ukraine are investigating.
The gunman was seen holding and shooting a weapon in the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)
GUNMAN OPENS FIRE AT HIGH SCHOOL IN TURKEY, WOUNDING AT LEAST 16
Ukraine’s security service labeled the attack an act of terrorism.
“All available information about him and the motives behind his actions is being thoroughly investigated,” Zelenskyy said. “Every detail must be verified.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
One of the shooter’s neighbors, Hanna Kulyk, 75, described him as an “educated, refined man,” who lived alone and did not socialize often.
“You’d never guess he was some kind of criminal,” Kulyk told The Associated Press.
-
Science4 minutes agoA renewed threat to JPL as the Trump administration tries again to cut NASA
-
Sports10 minutes agoAfter 55 years as a broadcaster in L.A., Randy Rosenbloom is leaving town
-
World22 minutes agoBulgaria votes in eighth election in five years
-
News52 minutes agoReal estate investors are buying up long-term care facilities. Residents can suffer
-
Detroit, MI3 hours agoFormer Piston shows Detroit what they’re missing as he dominates next to LeBron
-
San Francisco, CA3 hours agoEastbound I-80 closure in San Francisco snarls traffic, slows business
-
Videos3 hours agoCan Keir Starmer survive the latest Mandelson revelations? | BBC News
-
Dallas, TX3 hours agoPetar Musa’s Brace Not Enough as FC Dallas Draws LA Galaxy 2-2