Pakistan’s defense minister declared an ‘open war’ with Afghanistan on Friday after the two sides exchanged heavy fire along their shared border on Thursday, according to multiple reports.

Defense Minister Khawaja Mohammad Asif said in a post on X that Pakistan had hoped the Taliban would bring stability after NATO’s withdrawal, but instead accused the group of turning Afghanistan ‘into a colony of India’ and ‘exporting terrorism.’

‘Our patience has now run out. Now it is open war between us,’ he said.

The clashes came after the Taliban said it launched retaliatory strikes on Pakistani military positions, while Islamabad said it was responding to unprovoked fire in the area.

Reuters reported that both forces clashed for more than two hours along their roughly 2,600-kilometer (1,615-mile) border, threatening a ceasefire that had been agreed to in 2025 after fighting.

Thursday’s flare-up came after Pakistani forces carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan earlier this week, with Taliban officials saying the strikes killed at least 18 people, Reuters reported Feb. 24.

Pakistan said it targeted militant hideouts and rejected claims that civilians were targeted.

The Taliban described an ‘extensive’ military operation against Pakistani army positions in response to the strikes.

‘In response to repeated provocations, extensive preemptive operations have been launched against Pakistani military positions along the Durand Line,’ Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid wrote on X.

 In a separate statement, he said ‘specialized laser units’ were operating at night.

Taliban military spokesman Mawlawi Wahidullah Mohammadi also said in a video shared with Reuters that the ‘retaliatory operation’ began Thursday evening.

Mujahid said ‘numerous’ Pakistani soldiers had been killed and some were also captured. Reuters said it could not independently verify those claims.

In another post on X, Mujahid said, ‘The cowardly Pakistani army has bombed some places in Kabul, Kandahar, and Paktia. Praise be to God, no one was harmed.’  

Pakistan has since rejected the Taliban’s account. 

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said on X that the Afghanistan Taliban’s ‘unprovoked action along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border’ was given an ‘immediate and effective response.’

The ministry said Taliban forces had ‘miscalculated and opened unprovoked fire on multiple locations’ along the border in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

The post said the fire was being met with an ‘immediate and effective response by Pakistan’s security forces.’

‘Early reports confirm heavy casualties on the Afghan side with multiple posts and equipment destroyed,’ the ministry said. 

‘Pakistan will take all necessary measures to ensure its territorial integrity and the safety and security of its citizens.’

Pakistani security sources also told Reuters that 22 Taliban personnel had been killed, and several quadcopters were shot down.

The fighting follows Pakistan’s accusations that the Taliban is sheltering TTP militants behind a surge in violence and suicide attacks. 

The Afghan Taliban denies the claim. A day before February’s strikes, Pakistani officials said they had ‘irrefutable evidence’ that militants were launching attacks from Afghan soil, Reuters reported.

Related Article

Thailand launches airstrikes along Cambodia border as tensions escalate

Afghanistan and Pakistan exchanged significant cross-border fire Thursday in an escalation of hostilities along their shared border, according to multiple reports.

The clashes came after the Taliban said it launched retaliatory strikes on Pakistani military positions, while Islamabad said it was responding to unprovoked fire in the area.

Reuters reported that both forces clashed for more than two hours along their roughly 2,600-kilometer (1,615-mile) border, threatening a ceasefire that had been agreed to in 2025 after fighting.

Thursday’s flare-up came after Pakistani forces carried out airstrikes inside Afghanistan earlier this week, with Taliban officials saying the strikes killed at least 18 people, Reuters reported Feb. 24.

Pakistan said it targeted militant hideouts and rejected claims that civilians were targeted.

The Taliban described an ‘extensive’ military operation against Pakistani army positions in response to the strikes.

‘In response to repeated provocations, extensive preemptive operations have been launched against Pakistani military positions along the Durand Line,’ Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid wrote on X.

 In a separate statement, he said ‘specialized laser units’ were operating at night.

Taliban military spokesman Mawlawi Wahidullah Mohammadi also said in a video shared with Reuters that the ‘retaliatory operation’ began Thursday evening.

Mujahid said ‘numerous’ Pakistani soldiers had been killed and some were also captured. Reuters said it could not independently verify those claims.

In another post on X, Mujahid said, ‘The cowardly Pakistani army has bombed some places in Kabul, Kandahar, and Paktia. Praise be to God, no one was harmed.’  

Pakistan has since rejected the Taliban’s account. 

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said on X that the Afghanistan Taliban’s ‘unprovoked action along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border’ was given an ‘immediate and effective response.’

The ministry said Taliban forces had ‘miscalculated and opened unprovoked fire on multiple locations’ along the border in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

The post said the fire was being met with an ‘immediate and effective response by Pakistan’s security forces.’

‘Early reports confirm heavy casualties on the Afghan side with multiple posts and equipment destroyed,’ the ministry said. 

‘Pakistan will take all necessary measures to ensure its territorial integrity and the safety and security of its citizens.’

Pakistani security sources also told Reuters that 22 Taliban personnel had been killed, and several quadcopters were shot down.

The fighting follows Pakistan’s accusations that the Taliban is sheltering TTP militants behind a surge in violence and suicide attacks. 

The Afghan Taliban denies the claim. A day before February’s strikes, Pakistani officials said they had ‘irrefutable evidence’ that militants were launching attacks from Afghan soil, Reuters reported.

Related Article

Thailand launches airstrikes along Cambodia border as tensions escalate

A Senate Republican warned Thursday that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s primary focus is shedding American blood as U.S.-Iran relations continue to simmer. 

‘The ayatollah not only thinks that I’m going to hell because I don’t agree with his religion — he wants to kill me,’ Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said on the Senate floor Thursday.

‘He wants to kill Americans and the Israelis and anybody who does not believe in his jihad and drink our blood out of a boot,’ Kennedy continued. ‘And he’s acted on that, and that’s not acceptable.’

Kennedy’s message comes as tensions with Iran are escalating. At the core of the issue is Iran’s capability and Khamenei’s desire to build a nuclear weapon.

President Donald Trump gave the country’s leadership roughly 10 to 15 days to reach a nuclear agreement and warned that the inability to strike a deal could lead to U.S. military action in the region.

He renewed that edict during his State of the Union address earlier this week.

‘I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror … to have a nuclear weapon,’ Trump said.

Kennedy cautioned that if the Trump administration were to broker a deal, it would need to have guardrails.

‘If we make a deal with Iran, let’s make sure we have a protocol to enforce it because, in my experience in watching the Ayatollah through the years, I wouldn’t trust this man if he was three days dead,’ he said.

Lawmakers are wrestling with the exact nature of what a strike could look like and whether Congress should weigh in before Trump makes a decision.

Senators Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., expect that their Iran war powers resolution will hit the Senate floor next week, which would curb Trump’s ability to strike the country without Congress’ approval.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the most important aspect of the Iran negotiations was ‘to prevent them from having nuclear capability.’

‘But there are also other threats that they represent in the region, and we have a big presence in that region, as you know. So, I think they’re looking at and working through what the options might be,’ Thune said. 

‘In my view, if you’re going to do something there, you better well make it about getting new leadership and regime change.’

Related Article

US positions aircraft carriers, strike platforms across Middle East as Iran talks shift to Oman

A Senate Republican warned Thursday that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s primary focus is shedding American blood as U.S.-Iran relations continue to simmer. 

‘The Ayatollah not only thinks that I’m going to hell because I don’t agree with his religion — he wants to kill me,’ Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said on the Senate floor Thursday.

‘He wants to kill Americans and the Israelis and anybody who does not believe in his jihad and drink our blood out of a boot,’ Kennedy continued. ‘And he’s acted on that, and that’s not acceptable.’

Kennedy’s message comes as tensions with Iran are escalating. At the core of the issue is Iran’s capability and Khamenei’s desire to build a nuclear weapon.

President Donald Trump gave the country’s leadership roughly 10 to 15 days to reach a nuclear agreement and warned that the inability to strike a deal could lead to U.S. military action in the region.

He renewed that edict during his State of the Union address earlier this week.

‘I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror … to have a nuclear weapon,’ Trump said.

Kennedy cautioned that if the Trump administration were to broker a deal, it would need to have guardrails.

‘If we make a deal with Iran, let’s make sure we have a protocol to enforce it, because in my experience in watching the Ayatollah through the years, I wouldn’t trust this man if he was three days dead,’ he said.

Meanwhile, lawmakers are wrestling with the exact nature of what a strike could look like and whether Congress should weigh in before Trump makes a decision.

Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., expect that their Iran war powers resolution will hit the Senate floor next week, which would curb Trump’s ability to strike the country without Congress’ approval.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said that the most important aspect of the Iran negotiations was ‘to prevent them from having nuclear capability.’

‘But there are also other threats that they represent in the region, and we have a big presence in that region, as you know, so I think they’re looking at and working through what the options might be,’ Thune said. ‘In my view, if you’re going to do something there, you better well make it about getting new leadership and regime change.’

Related Article

US positions aircraft carriers, strike platforms across Middle East as Iran talks shift to Oman

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wasted no time criticizing Republicans after she emerged from a roughly six-hour grilling in the House Oversight Committee’s Jeffrey Epstein probe Thursday evening.

Clinton told reporters she answered questions ‘repetitively, literally over and over again’ after blasting Republicans for holding a closed-door deposition instead of a public hearing.

She said, however, that she would not testify again if there was a public hearing, telling reporters, ‘They had a chance to do it in public, and I wish they had done it in public. And I think they’re making the wrong decision, avoiding doing it in public.

‘It then got, at the end, quite unusual because I started being asked about UFOs and a series of questions about Pizzagate, one of the most vile, bogus conspiracy theories that was propagated on the internet that was serving as the basis of a member’s questions to me,’ Clinton said.

She also knocked Republican lawmakers for not attending the deposition of former Victoria’s Secret CEO Leslie Wexner in person.

Clinton did save praise for House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., however, ‘for raising a series of significant questions that I responded to about the nature of the investigation and the areas that I thought should be explored.’

‘So, I appreciated that. I want to see the truth come out. So, that was a reassuring way to end a very long, repetitive, deposition,’ Clinton said.

She also reiterated comments from her opening statement that she did not know Epstein and said she only knew Ghislaine Maxwell ‘as an acquaintance.’

When asked why Maxwell was invited to daughter Chelsea Clinton’s wedding, however, Clinton said she was a ‘plus-one of someone invited.’

Clinton’s deposition began in the 11 a.m. hour and wrapped in the 5 p.m. hour in her hometown of Chappaqua, New York.

Comer said afterward that Clinton ‘answered most of our questions’ in a ‘productive’ deposition but said Republicans ultimately ‘weren’t satisfied’ with what they gleaned.

‘The number of times that she said, ‘I don’t know, you’ll have to ask my husband,’ was more than a dozen,’ Comer said.

Former President Bill Clinton is slated to testify behind closed doors Friday for what Comer said would be an ‘even longer’ deposition.

Neither Clinton is implicated in any wrongdoing related to Epstein or Maxwell, but Bill Clinton was known to have a relationship with the late financier and sex trafficker before the federal investigations into Epstein’s crimes came to light.

Hillary Clinton said that relationship ‘ended years, several years, before anything about Epstein’s criminal activities came to light.’

Rep. William Timmons, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital it was ‘frustrating’ to see Hillary Clinton ‘obstinate and sort of annoyed at the process.’

‘She had an excuse for everything. But when you’ve got a pattern of involvement and a pattern of association, the American people deserve answers,’ Timmons said.

‘Honestly, I tend to find her to be fairly credible, but I mean, all of this is going to culminate tomorrow with President Clinton, and he has a lot of really hard questions to answer. And I don’t think that the American people are going to like his answers.’

The deposition was tense at times, a tension Clinton alluded to when she accused Republicans of breaking the rules when Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., apparently shared a photo from inside the deposition room with a right-wing influencer.

‘We had a bit of a challenge in the beginning because we agreed upon rules based on the fact it was going to be a closed hearing at their demand. And one of the members violated that rule, which was very upsetting because it suggested that they might violate other of our agreements,’ Clinton said. 

‘So, we had to cease the hearing for a period of time until we could get assurances that no rules would be broken going forward.’

It’s notable, however, that Democrats also leaked information from inside the room but did not get any public blowback. A New York Times reporter posted reporting about the deposition on X earlier in the day while citing a ‘Dem member in the room.’

Bill Clinton’s deposition is also expected to kick off in the 11 a.m. hour on Friday at the Chappaqua Performing Arts Center.

Related Article

Reporter’s Notebook: Clintons call for open Epstein files hearing after months of defying subpoenas

Denmark will head to the polls March 24 after Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called a snap parliamentary election, a move widely viewed as an attempt to consolidate rising public support tied to her handling of tensions with President Donald Trump over Greenland.

Frederiksen announced the early vote Wednesday, arguing Denmark needs political clarity at a time of mounting geopolitical pressure. According to Reuters, she said the country faces ‘a serious foreign policy situation,’ adding voters should have a say in how Denmark navigates it.

Her center-left Social Democratic government has seen a lift in opinion polls in recent weeks after taking a firm stance that Greenland is not for sale and that Danish sovereignty is non-negotiable. 

The dispute with Washington has reshaped the domestic political conversation, pushing Arctic security and national sovereignty to the forefront of Danish politics.

Frederiksen, who has led Denmark since mid-2019, has spent much of the past year managing the fallout from Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland, the vast Arctic island that is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Tensions escalated sharply last month when Trump threatened to impose new tariffs on Denmark and several other European Union countries.

Trump has argued that the United States needs control of the North Atlantic island for national security reasons, citing increased activity by Russia and China in the Arctic. The region has grown in strategic importance as melting ice opens shipping routes and access to natural resources, intensifying competition among major powers.

The standoff appeared to ease after Trump announced that a framework agreement to strengthen Arctic security had been reached in talks with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. After that announcement, U.S., Danish and Greenlandic officials began technical discussions on implementing the arrangement, focusing on security coordination rather than any change in sovereignty.

Throughout the crisis, Frederiksen and other senior Danish officials repeatedly emphasized that Greenland’s status is not up for negotiation. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference earlier in February, Frederiksen cautioned that she did not believe the crisis had fully passed and suggested Washington could still harbor ambitions to annex the island.

According to The Guardian, Danish commentators have described the prime minister’s polling boost as a ‘Greenland bounce,’ reflecting growing domestic approval of her firm posture toward Washington.

Frederiksen’s decision to call early elections appears aimed at converting that surge into a renewed mandate. Denmark’s next general election had not been scheduled until later this year, but the prime minister argued that the current security climate justifies seeking fresh voter backing.

Greenland, home to roughly 56,000 people, has long been strategically significant due to its location between North America and Europe. The United States maintains a military presence there at Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base. Any suggestion of U.S. acquisition has historically been sensitive in both Copenhagen and Nuuk, Greenland’s capital.

Euronews reported that Frederiksen’s government has stressed cooperation with allies while firmly rejecting any negotiations over Greenland’s sovereignty. European leaders have signaled support for Denmark, reinforcing the view that Arctic stability is increasingly central to NATO and EU planning.

Opposition parties have criticized the timing of the snap election, arguing that Frederiksen is seeking a political advantage during a moment of heightened nationalism. Others, however, have largely backed the government’s line on Greenland, suggesting that the sovereignty issue may transcend traditional party divides.

The March 24 vote will determine whether Frederiksen can strengthen her coalition or voters shift the parliamentary balance. It will also serve as a broader test of how Danes believe their country should manage its relationship with Washington as Arctic security becomes a defining issue of global competition.

Related Article

Trump tells Davos US alone can secure Greenland, insists he won’t ‘use force’

Denmark will head to the polls on March 24 after Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called a snap parliamentary election, a move widely viewed as an attempt to consolidate rising public support tied to her handling of tensions with President Donald Trump over Greenland.

Frederiksen announced the early vote on Wednesday, arguing that Denmark needs political clarity at a time of mounting geopolitical pressure. According to Reuters, she said the country faces ‘a serious foreign policy situation,’ and that voters should have a say in how Denmark navigates it.

Her center-left Social Democratic government has seen a lift in opinion polls in recent weeks after taking a firm stance that Greenland is not for sale and that Danish sovereignty is non-negotiable. 

The dispute with Washington has reshaped the domestic political conversation, pushing Arctic security and national sovereignty to the forefront of Danish politics.

Frederiksen, who has led Denmark since mid-2019, has spent much of the past year managing the fallout from Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland, the vast Arctic island that is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Tensions escalated sharply last month when Trump threatened to impose new tariffs on Denmark and several other European Union countries.

Trump has argued that the United States needs control of the North Atlantic island for national security reasons, citing increased activity by Russia and China in the Arctic. The region has grown in strategic importance as melting ice opens shipping routes and access to natural resources, intensifying competition among major powers.

The standoff appeared to ease after Trump announced that a framework agreement to strengthen Arctic security had been reached following talks with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. After that announcement, U.S., Danish and Greenlandic officials began technical discussions on implementing the arrangement, focusing on security coordination rather than any change in sovereignty.

Throughout the crisis, Frederiksen and other senior Danish officials repeatedly emphasized that Greenland’s status is not up for negotiation. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference earlier in February, Frederiksen cautioned that she did not believe the crisis had fully passed and suggested Washington could still harbor ambitions to annex the island.

According to The Guardian, Danish commentators have described the prime minister’s polling boost as a ‘Greenland bounce,’ reflecting growing domestic approval of her firm posture toward Washington.

Frederiksen’s decision to call early elections appears aimed at converting that surge into a renewed mandate. Denmark’s next general election had not been scheduled until later this year, but the prime minister argued that the current security climate justifies seeking fresh voter backing.

Greenland, home to roughly 56,000 people, has long been strategically significant due to its location between North America and Europe. The United States maintains a military presence there at Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base. Any suggestion of U.S. acquisition has historically been sensitive in both Copenhagen and Nuuk, Greenland’s capital.

Euronews reported that Frederiksen’s government has stressed cooperation with allies while firmly rejecting any negotiations over Greenland’s sovereignty. European leaders have signaled support for Denmark, reinforcing the view that Arctic stability is increasingly central to NATO and EU planning.

Opposition parties have criticized the timing of the snap election, arguing that Frederiksen is seeking political advantage during a moment of heightened nationalism. Others, however, have largely backed the government’s line on Greenland, suggesting that the sovereignty issue may transcend traditional party divides.

The March 24 vote will determine whether Frederiksen can strengthen her coalition or whether voters will shift the parliamentary balance. It will also serve as a broader test of how Danes believe their country should manage its relationship with Washington as Arctic security becomes a defining issue of global competition.

Related Article

Trump tells Davos US alone can secure Greenland, insists he won’t ‘use force’