China's strategy, Pakistas support, and the US stake in Afghanistan

In the great geopolitical chessboard of Asia, Afghanistan has often been caught in the middle not as a pawn, but as a square upon which powers compete, collaborate, or withdraw.
While regional players like China and Pakistan advance a cooperative framework for development, the shadow of American presence past and present still looms large.
If Afghanistan is to truly rise from its ashes, a careful balancing act between old influences and new initiatives is not just advisable, it’s inevitable.
America may have left Kabul’s tarmac, but it never truly exited Afghan calculus. Washington still views Afghanistan through the lenses of counterterrorism, regional stability, and strategic positioning vis-à-vis rivals.
Its interests now manifest in indirect ways: sanctions, humanitarian aid, conditional engagement, and geopolitical leverage particularly as China deepens its foothold through the Belt and Road Initiative and possible CPEC extensions.
Yet, this is where diplomacy must replace rivalry. Afghanistan needs neither a battleground nor a buffer zone it needs bridges.
It is time to move beyond the politics of exclusion toward a regional vision of inclusion.
China offers calm infrastructure and quiet investment, preferring trade routes to troop routes.
Its philosophy is rooted in “win-win cooperation,” and it treats Afghanistan not as a problem to be fixed, but as a partner to be elevated.
This approach, coupled with Pakistan’s pragmatic engagement and historical ties with Kabul, forms the core of a realistic regional revival.
But balancing China’s silent strength with America’s vocal interests requires nuance. Islamabad has long understood this tightrope.
It has maintained relations with both Washington and Beijing for decades, often playing the role of a reluctant yet resilient bridge between East and West.
Today, that role becomes even more crucial not just for Pakistan’s own diplomacy, but for Afghanistan’s future stability.
The United States, too, must evolve its Afghan policy. Instead of punitive isolation or passive disengagement, Washington can adopt a constructive role by supporting multilateral dialogues, encouraging Afghan led initiatives, and coordinating with regional actors without competing against them.
The American exit need not mean abandonment it can be redefined as a transition from dominance to diplomacy.
As a regional observer, it is not enough for me to merely chronicle unfolding events it is essential to interpret them through the prism of opportunity and responsibility.
Afghanistan today stands not only at a geographic crossroads but at a philosophical oneÔ should it be perpetually defined by the ambitions of others, or by its own agency and alliances? The answer, I believe, lies in encouraging platforms where Afghan voices are not just heard, but heeded. In this pivotal hour, nations with influence must exercise it with empathy, not ego.
From Beijing’s boardrooms to Washington’s think tanks, and from Islamabad’s diplomatic corridors to Kabul’s resilient heart, a new vocabulary of engagement must emerge, one that blends strategy with sensitivity, and power with purpose.
My own journalistic journey, shaped by observing this region’s trials and triumphs, convinces me that lasting peace is never imposed; it is negotiated, nurtured, and locally owned.
And if the world is willing to listen truly listen Afghanistan might finally speak in the language of progress rather than pain. The Afghan people deserve peace, not proxy wars.
They deserve power grids, not power plays.
And most of all, they deserve partners not puppeteers.
Let the next chapter be one where regional responsibility, international respect, and Afghan resilience write a new future. Let it not be a game of thrones, but a chorus of cooperation.