The United States' relationships with Afghanistan and Pakistan has undergone a period of both divergence and recalibration, dynamics that would prove consequential when U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran transformed the region overnight in February and March 2026. Washington's posture toward Taliban-governed Afghanistan hardened markedly, driven by a convergence of security incidents, legislative action, and sweeping immigration restrictions, while its engagement with Pakistan deepened around a transactional axis of critical minerals, counterterrorism cooperation, and strategic competition with China. Across the Durand Line, the fragile architecture of cross-border diplomacy continued to buckle under the weight of militancy, mass displacement, and competing threat narratives. These bilateral adjustments shaped the positions from which both Islamabad and Kabul approached a regional crisis neither had anticipated. This article examines those interlocking dynamics across four dimensions: the deterioration of U.S.–Afghanistan relations; the deepening of U.S.–Pakistan economic and security ties; the escalation of Afghanistan–Pakistan border tensions; and the refugee and humanitarian consequences that cut across all three relationships.
U.S.–Afghanistan Relations: From Conditional Engagement to Effective Disengagement
The trajectory of U.S.–Afghanistan relations over this period was defined by a rapid narrowing of engagement channels and a turn toward containment rather than conditional dialogue. This shift reflected deeper structural factors, including the failure of two decades of reconstruction, mounting domestic scepticism about Afghan resettlement, and the Taliban's continued refusal to meet international benchmarks on governance and women's rights.
The institutional backdrop was set by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), which issued its final report in December 2025, bringing 17 years of oversight to a close. The report documented that the United States had spent more on Afghan reconstruction than the inflation-adjusted cost of rebuilding 16 European nations under the Marshall Plan, while identifying billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse. The Afghanistan War Commission similarly noted that the United States had prioritized empowering strongmen over inclusive governance. Together, these assessments provided the institutional backdrop against which the administration's subsequent policy shifts unfolded — and lent them a degree of political legitimacy.
The immediate trigger came in November 2025, when an Afghan national shot two U.S. National Guard members in Washington, DC — an event we covered extensively in December. The suspect was a former member of a CIA-directed Afghan Zero Unit who had entered the United States under humanitarian parole following the 2021 withdrawal. Within 48 hours, the administration suspended visa processing for all Afghan passport holders and halted asylum decisions across all nationalities. By December, the travel ban had been expanded to 39 countries, with Afghanistan captured under the expanded restrictions. Pakistan was subsequently included in a broader January 2026 pause on immigrant visa processing covering 75 countries — a more limited measure than the travel ban itself.
Legislative action reinforced the executive response. In late January 2026, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee advanced the No Tax Dollars for Terrorists Act, which would block U.S. funds from directly or indirectly benefiting the Taliban's Islamic Emirate.
The humanitarian consequences were immediate and severe. A January 2026 Refugees International report found that sweeping U.S. foreign aid cuts had eliminated the vast majority of maternal health, reproductive health, and gender-based violence funding in Afghanistan, with hundreds of health facilities closed or suspended. U.S. funding commitments for 2026 stood at zero.
These cuts sat alongside a striking internal contradiction. The State Department's own 2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices documented a significant deterioration in women's rights and security conditions under Taliban rule. These findings contradicted the Department of Homeland Security's concurrent justification for revoking Temporary Protected Status for Afghans already in the United States, which cited improvements in Afghanistan's security and economic situation. The starkest illustration of this posture came in February 2026, when reports emerged that the U.S. State Department was offering payments to Afghan evacuees stranded at Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar to return to Afghanistan — many of whom had worked alongside U.S. forces and feared Taliban retribution. Taken together, these developments trace a consistent arc: a U.S. policy posture toward Afghanistan that has moved from conditional engagement to effective disengagement — and from humanitarian obligation to managed withdrawal.
U.S.–Pakistan Relations: A Transactional Deepening
In contrast to the deterioration of U.S.–Afghanistan engagement, the U.S.–Pakistan relationship underwent a pragmatic recalibration organised principally around critical minerals, counterterrorism cooperation, and strategic competition with China. The shift was anchored by a striking symbolic moment: in September 2025, Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir presented President Trump with a box of rare earth mineral samples in the Oval Office — a gesture that encapsulated the new terms of the bilateral relationship. The White House visit followed a multimillion memorandum of understanding signed between a U.S. firm and Pakistan's military-run Frontier Works Organisation, covering antimony, copper, gold, tungsten, and rare earth elements. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, the first Pakistani premier to visit the White House since 2019, attended alongside Munir. The visit marked a pivot: Pakistan, long viewed in Washington through a lens of security (and counterterrorism frustration), had repositioned itself as a mineral partner in a moment of acute U.S.-China competition.
The minerals diplomacy was followed in December 2025 by the U.S. Export-Import Bank's approval of $1.25 billion in financing for the Reko Diq copper-gold project in Balochistan, one of the world's largest undeveloped deposits. The financing cemented U.S. strategic interest in Pakistan's extractive sector alongside existing Chinese investment under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. The Reko Diq investment illustrated a broader dynamic: Washington and Beijing are now competing for influence in the same province, amid an insurgency that poses direct risks to both countries' assets.
The economic engagement has been paired with intensified security cooperation on multiple occasions. For example, Army Chief Munir met Secretary of State Rubio at the Munich Security Conference in February, while the Secretary of State also met with Prime Minister Sharif on the sidelines of the inaugural Board of Peace meeting in Washington. Both sides consistently emphasised deeper counterterrorism ties - a sentiment also echoed by a February dialogue led by Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi, Minister of State for Interior Talal Chaudhry, and US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs John Mark Pomeroy in Islamabad.
The Iran war complicated this trajectory in ways that exposed the limits of Pakistan's balancing act. Following Khamenei's assassination, violent protests erupted nationwide, while demonstrators attempted to storm the U.S. Consulate in Karachi. President Zardari publicly expressed sorrow over Khamenei's death and declared Pakistan's solidarity with Iran, a statement that sat awkwardly alongside Islamabad's deepening Washington ties. The unrest underscored the domestic political constraints that Pakistani leadership must navigate: the Munir-Trump relationship has elevated Pakistan internationally, but it has also generated costs at home that minerals deal can not offset.
The Strait of Hormuz closure added an economic dimension. Pakistan, heavily dependent on Gulf energy imports, requested an alternative oil supply route from Saudi Arabia following disruptions, a request Riyadh supported. Meanwhile, U.S.-made weapons abandoned after the 2021 Afghan withdrawal are now circulating across the region, strengthening militant groups and complicating the very counterterrorism cooperation Washington is seeking to deepen.
Refugees, Migration and the Collapse of Protection Pathways
Cutting across all three bilateral relationships is an accelerating contraction of refugee protection and resettlement pathways that has left Afghan populations increasingly exposed. The U.S. visa suspension, travel ban expansion, and repatriation from Qatar collectively represent a dismantling of the infrastructure through which Afghans who worked alongside U.S. forces, or who fled Taliban rule, sought safety.
Pakistan’s response compounded the crisis. In February 2026, Islamabad announced plans to deport nearly 20,000 Afghan refugees who had been waiting for U.S. resettlement, issuing notifications to provincial authorities to begin enforcement. The decision, driven by frustration over stalled U.S. processing and the political fallout from the November shooting, effectively left thousands of individuals in limbo — unable to proceed to the United States, unwilling to return to Taliban-governed Afghanistan, and facing forced repatriation from their country of first asylum. This formed part of a broader pattern. Afghanistan was simultaneously facing a surge in returnees from both Pakistan and Iran, straining humanitarian resources amid economic crisis and Taliban restrictions.
The Road Ahead: Divergence Without Resolution
Recent developments reveal a set of U.S.–Afghanistan–Pakistan dynamics that are simultaneously deepening and fragmenting. Washington's posture toward Afghanistan has shifted from conditional engagement to effective containment, driven by a combination of reconstruction failure documented in the SIGAR final report, the political ramifications of a security incident, and legislative action to restrict both funding and immigration. Its relationship with Pakistan, by contrast, has entered a phase of transactional deepening anchored by the Reko Diq financing, expanded counterterrorism cooperation, and strategic competition with China for critical minerals. The Iran war has added a further dimension to this calculus: Pakistan's emergence as a key mediator between Washington and Tehran — hosting multilateral talks, brokering partial Hormuz concessions, and leveraging the Munir-Trump relationship — has elevated Islamabad's diplomatic profile at precisely the moment its eastern border has descended into open conflict.
The Afghanistan–Pakistan border, meanwhile, has become the arena in which these competing trajectories collide. Militant attacks from Afghan territory, Pakistan’s retaliatory strikes, and the effective collapse of the previous ceasefires all point toward a worsening security spiral that neither bilateral relationship is currently configured to address. For Afghan civilians, whether displaced within the region, stranded in third countries, or caught between military operations and militant violence, the period has marked a further erosion of protection.
The central tension running through all of these developments is the gap between Washington's deepening investment in Pakistan and its accelerating withdrawal from Afghanistan. What emerges is a pattern of selective engagement: advancing strategic interests in one bilateral relationship while retreating from the obligations of another. Whether that pattern proves sustainable, for the region and for the populations caught between the two, remains an open question.
Read more of our Durand Dispatch: Perspectives articles here:
