TODAY’S PAPER | March 16, 2026 | EPAPER

Pakistan rejects Afghan Taliban claim of successful strike in Wana

Information ministry says rudimentary drone was destroyed, no military installation or infrastructure was hit


Web Desk March 16, 2026 1 min read
Photo: MOIB

The federal government on Sunday categorically dismissed claims by the Afghan Taliban regime that they had carried out a successful strike in South Waziristan's Wana.

"The fact is that a rudimentary drone was destroyed over South Waziristan through soft kill measures. No military installation or infrastructure was hit," the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MOIB) said in a post on X.

The statement came in response to claims by the Afghan Taliban’s 'defence ministry', which said it had successfully struck Wana amid ongoing operations by security forces under Operation Ghazab-Lil-Haq.

The statement by MOIB further criticised the Taliban’s announcement as part of a pattern of propaganda and false claims.

“The Taliban regime’s claim reflects their established pattern of pushing propaganda and fabricated claims, such as the recent false assertions about shooting down Pakistan Air Force aircraft and capturing pilots, hence cannot be relied upon,” the information ministry said.

Read More: Security forces destroy technical infrastructure, storage facility in Kandahar strikes

A day earlier, the information ministry had rejected similar claims by the Afghan Taliban regime that it had captured a Pakistani military post and inflicted damage, terming them false, fabricated, and aimed at misleading the Afghan public.

Information Minister Attaullah Tarar also commented on the matter, saying: “These false claims have no basis or foundation."

Tarar added that the damages and losses incurred by the Afghan Taliban and the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan were regularly updated by the information ministry with “irrefutable pictorial and video evidence”.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ