Pakistan’s commercial supply chains continue to face significant disruption as key border crossings with Afghanistan remain suspended or operate intermittently due to heightened security tensions. The freeze at Torkham and Chaman has stalled bilateral trade, blocked transit cargo en route to Central Asia, and caused thousands of containers to accumulate at Karachi and Port Qasim terminals.

This sudden halt is reshaping regional logistics. Traders, transporters, and policymakers are now urgently reviewing alternative corridors to maintain access to the Central Asian Republics (CARs), even as costs rise and transit times increase.

Why the Border Matters
The Afghanistan corridor has historically been Pakistan’s principal gateway to the northern markets. When open, it provides:

• The shortest overland path to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan
• The lowest per-container transportation cost
• Fastest transit lead times (4–7 days to Torkham → Central Asia)

With closures and volatility since mid-October, logistics operations have been disrupted, causing demurrage, storage fees, and uncertainty for exporters and importers alike.

Alternate Routes Under Consideration
Given the suspended Afghan corridor, three practical alternatives are now being assessed for Pakistan–CIS trade flows.

1. Pakistan → Iran → Central Asia (Land Corridor)
   Route: Karachi/Gwadar → Iranian road network → Turkmenistan → Uzbekistan/Kazakhstan
   Transit Time: 10–15 days
   Cost: Moderate to high
   Pros
   Year-round land connectivity
   Improving port incentives in Iran
   Avoids high-altitude bottlenecks
   Most viable large-scale option under current conditions
   Cons
   Higher transit fees inside Iran
   Border bureaucracy in Turkmenistan
   Longer distance than Afghanistan route
   Overall: Currently the most dependable and scalable substitute for trade with Central Asia.
2. Pakistan → China (Khunjerab Pass) → Central Asia
   Route: Karachi → Gilgit → Khunjerab Pass → Xinjiang → Kazakhstan/Kyrgyzstan
   Transit Time: 12–20 days
   Cost: Highest among overland routes
   Pros
   Well-developed road infrastructure
   Strong inland logistics inside China
   Works under international transit regimes
   Cons
   Harsh winters and altitude issues
   Limited cargo-handling capacity
   Long and costly haul
   Overall: Suitable for specialized, high-value cargo, not yet viable for mass commercial trade.
3. Multimodal & Overland Routes via Iran and the Caspian Region
   The earlier definition is revised. There are two distinct alternatives, depending on the final destination:
   A. Pakistan → Iran → Anzali Port → Vessel to Aktau Port, Kazakhstan
   (TRUE multimodal route)
   Transit Time: 15–25 days
   Cost: High
   Pros
   Direct maritime connection between Iran and Kazakhstan
   Useful for cargo destined specifically to western Kazakhstan
   Helpful when northern land borders are congested
   Cons
   Higher maritime handling charges
   Limited vessel frequency
   Slower overall movement due to port transfers
   Overall: An option for specific cargo profiles, but not competitive for general trade.
   B. Pakistan → Iran → Astara Border → Azerbaijan → onward to Baku
   (Pure land route — NO multimodal leg required)
   Transit Time: 12–18 days
   Cost: Moderate to high
   Pros
   Direct overland linkage — no ferry required
   Baku acts as a key transshipment and rail hub
   Extends access toward the Caucasus and eastern Black Sea markets
   Cons
   Multiple border crossings
   Additional customs coordination required
   Longer than Iran–Central Asia direct land route
   Overall: A feasible land-only connection for cargo moving toward the Caucasus or connecting further west.
   Transit Time Comparison
   Route – Transit Time – Reliability
   Afghan Corridor – 4–7 days – Unreliable due to closures
   Iran–Turkmenistan Route – 10–15 days – Medium–High
   China Route – 12–20 days – Seasonal limitations
   Anzali → Aktau (multimodal) – 15–25 days – Medium
   Iran → Astara → Baku (land) – 12–18 days – Medium

Strategic Takeaways

1. Iran has emerged as the primary alternative corridor for Pakistani traders and regional transit cargo.
2. Multimodal Caspian options are viable but costly, suited to niche cargo or when land borders are restricted.
3. China’s route, while operational, is not yet cost-competitive for large-scale commercial trade.
4. Diversifying corridors is no longer optional—over-reliance on a single pathway exposes Pakistan to recurring disruptions.
5. Long-term resilience will require diplomatic engagement, trade facilitation reforms, and modern transit management.

Conclusion
The ongoing suspension of the Pak–Afghan border has forced a rethinking of the country’s regional trade strategy. While the traditional Afghan corridor remains the shortest and cheapest, the increasing geopolitical volatility has shifted attention to Iran’s ports and road networks, with supplementary links via the Caspian Sea and the South Caucasus.
Collectively, these routes offer lifelines for trade continuity—but at higher financial and operational costs.