America's Delusions on Pakistan

In the arena of global diplomacy, where visible gestures are often decoys and true intentions remain hidden, last week’s overture of US President Donald Trump towards Pakistan’s army chief, General Asim Munir, needs to be understood not as a standalone event, but in the context of America’s weekend strikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities: i.e., as part of a calculated manoeuvre rooted in both expediency and ignorance. That Trump “was honoured” to meet Munir and publicly claimed Pakistanis “knew Iran better than most” was not casual talk. It was a premeditated message that underscored America’s need of Pakistan on its side both diplomatically and potentially as a military partner. Courting the Pakistani general, however, is also a misjudgement—a glimpse of America’s enduring delusions.

India can easily see through the US-Pakistan theatre. And it need not react with anxiety or noise. Instead, it should observe, evaluate, and, when needed, act with precision. Trump’s decision to engage directly with Pakistan’s army chief through lunch diplomacy at the White House is hardly surprising. It is a throwback to the antiquated logic of bipolar era diplomacy where the American state, impatient with the democratic disorder in a military-dominated milieu, finds solace in military men—generals who make lofty promises of order, control and silence.

As a veteran of anti-communist Cold War alliances SEATO and CENTO and a front-line US ally during the Soviet-Afghan war, Pakistan is well-versed with the nuances of American strategy making. From Dwight D. Eisenhower’s fondness of General Ayub Khan to Ronald Reagan’s strategic embrace of General Zia-ul-Haq, the American presidency has followed a consistent pattern. However, as history has demonstrated, courting generals may yield a tactical advantage but invite strategic disaster.

What differs this time is the subtext. Trump’s praise of Pakistan’s knowledge of Iran is more than rhetorical flattery. It is a signal to the Pentagon and the Israeli right alike: the US, with Iran’s nuclear programme in its crosshairs, views the Pakistani military machine as a potential lever in the broader Middle Eastern calculus. That Pakistani people, by and large, are sympathetic towards Iran and view Israeli aggression dimly is irrelevant in this cynical calculation. Powerful quarters in Washington see the Pakistani army as a lever of consequence.

The Pakistani military may be willing to take extraordinary risks in acting against Iranian interests, provided it is assured by Washington of anything resembling a tactical advantage vis-a-vis India.

Against this backdrop, the much-hyped lunch with Munir was not a diplomatic courtesy; it was psychological inflation, a deliberate stroking of the ego of a man who views himself in imperial terms as a field marshal presiding over a captive polity. Even as Trump was boasting of his role in “averting war” between India and Pakistan—a false claim that New Delhi had rejected firmly and early—he was probably aware of the war plans unfolding in Tel Aviv. Israel’s airstrikes of 13 June against Iran had not yet taken place, but their outlines were already drawn. The choreography of the flattery of Munir within days of Tel Aviv’s action was not about equations in South Asia, but a likely prelude to another play for power in West Asia. In joining Israel with US firepower—although he could’ve confined the American role to supporting Tel Aviv with diplomacy and intelligence—Trump has apparently opted to sacrifice strategic flexibility and risk losing diplomatic leverage. The Pakistani military may be willing to take extraordinary risks in acting against Iranian interests, provided it is assured by Washington of anything resembling a tactical advantage vis-a-vis India. Pakistan’s official condemnation of Israeli strikes on Iran was rendered immaterial by the image of its field marshal seated at Trump’s lunch table.

This raises vital strategic implications for India. First, it affirms the reality that Pakistan’s military is its only coherent institution, with an unequalled grip over its foreign policy, nuclear doctrine and internal security. Second, it underscores that the West, particularly the US ruling elite, continues to see Pakistan through a transactional lens. This isn’t new but increasingly out of touch with current geopolitical realities.

The message from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent rejection of Trump’s gratuitous claim regarding the India-Pakistan ceasefire is clear: India would not be dragged into a charade of equivalence. This is not the Cold War era or a unipolar moment. India does not share a hyphen with Pakistan; what it shares is a geography, and increasingly, very little else. In the Trump-Munir exchange, New Delhi sees a populist president who treats foreign policy as theatre, a militarized state desperate for global validation and a global order that is once again flirting dangerously with instability.

Yet, this spectacle calls for vigilance. The symbolic coronation of Munir within Pakistan could animate the military establishment to engage in brinkmanship. New Delhi cannot afford to become complacent. It is premature to judge whether this reset in the US-Pakistan relationship is a thaw or an upswing; yet, in flattering Munir, Trump has opened the door to a broader psychological campaign detrimental to India’s stance: one that seeks to position the Pakistani military as a stabilizing force, even as it acts as the principal agent of regional instability.

India should keep deepening its strategic relationships—not just with the US, whose political trajectory remains clouded, but with the EU, France, Japan, Gulf countries and Australia. The West must also be reminded: if it seeks a counterweight to Chinese power, it will not find it in the client military of a garrison state. It will find it in a vibrant democracy that’s a bulwark against authoritarianism. India is not merely a ‘market’  or a ‘partner’; it is the backbone of any reliable Indo-Pacific institutional architecture. The great blunder of US diplomacy has long been its impatience. It seeks short-term gains over long-term understanding. Its gestures often appear dramatic, but its memory is woefully short. India has no need to highlight its importance; it must only act in accordance with it.

Last week’s spectacle was farcical but calls for reflection. As the Trump-led White House seeks to remake old alliances on discredited assumptions, the smile on Munir’s face as he sat across from Trump was not the smile of victory. It was the smile of a man flattered into tactical utility. India, having seen many Pakistani generals flattered before their fall, has no need for such illusions.

This commentary originally appeared in Mint.

• International Affairs
• India
• USA and Canada
• Middle East
• India-US relations
• Indo-Pacific security
• Iran strikes
• Iran strikes
• Middle East strategy
• military diplomacy
• Pakistani military
• regional diplomacy
• strategic stability
• Trump-Munir meeting
• Trump-Munir meeting
• US-Pakistan ties
• US-Pakistan ties

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.

PREV NEXT