Trump's Pakistan embrace: ‘Tactical romance' or a new ‘inner circle'?
Islamabad, Pakistan – In his first address to a joint session of Congress on March 4 this year, after becoming United States president for a second time, Donald Trump made a striking revelation.
He referred to the deadly Abbey Gate bombing at Kabul airport in August 2021 – which occurred as thousands of Afghans tried to flee following the Taliban takeover – and said the alleged perpetrator had been apprehended.
The country he credited with the arrest: Pakistan. 'I want to thank especially the government of Pakistan for helping arrest this monster,' Trump declared.
A little more than three months later, Trump hosted Pakistan's army chief Asim Munir for lunch at the White House on Wednesday — the first time a US president has hosted a military chief from Pakistan who isn't also the country's head of state. Munir is on a five-day trip to the US.
For a country that Trump had, just seven years earlier, accused of giving the US 'nothing but lies and deceit' and safe havens to terrorists – and one that his immediate predecessor Joe Biden called 'one of the most dangerous nations' – this marks a dramatic shift.
It's a reset that experts say has been in the making for weeks, under Trump's second administration, and that was solidified by the brief but intense military confrontation between India and Pakistan in May, during which the US tried to mediate a ceasefire.
Some analysts warn that the evolving relationship should be viewed as a product of Trump's personal position, rather than institutional policy.
'We are dealing with an administration which changes its tune by the hour. There is no process here,' Marvin Weinbaum, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute (MEI), told Al Jazeera.
'One minute the US has no interest, and the next minute priorities change rapidly. You're dealing with an administration that is mercurial and personalised, and you don't associate that with traditional US foreign policy,' he added.
However, others point out that even the optics of Trump hosting Munir are significant.
'Trump's lunch invite to Pakistan's army chief isn't just protocol-breaking, it's protocol-redefining,' said Raza Ahmad Rumi, a distinguished lecturer at the City University of New York (CUNY). 'It signals, quite visibly, that Pakistan is not just on Washington's radar, it's in the inner circle, at least for now.'
The meeting between Trump and Munir came amid heightened tensions in the Middle East, where Israel has been conducting strikes inside Iranian cities since June 13. Iran has retaliated with missile attacks of its own on Israel.
The Israeli offensive – targeting Iranian generals, missile bases, nuclear facilities and scientists – has killed more than 200 people. Iran's missile and drone attacks on Israel over the past six days have killed about 20 people.
The Benjamin Netanyahu-led Israeli government has been urging the US to join the offensive against Iran, which shares a 900-kilometre-long (559-mile) border with Pakistan.
Speaking to the media in the Oval Office after the lunch with Munir on Wednesday, Trump noted that the Pakistanis 'know Iran very well, better than most,' but added that they are 'not happy'.
According to Trump, however, the main reason for meeting Munir was to thank him for his role in defusing the May conflict between Pakistan and India, a confrontation that brought the region, home to more than 1.6 billion people, to the brink of nuclear war.
'The reason I had him here was that I wanted to thank him for not going into the war [with India]. And I want to thank PM [Narendra] Modi as well, who just left a few days ago. We're working on a trade deal with India and Pakistan,' said Trump, who is known to enjoy a warm relationship with Indian leader Modi.
'These two very smart people decided not to keep going with a war that could have been a nuclear war. Pakistan and India are two big nuclear powers. I was honoured to meet him today,' he added, referring to Munir.
The crisis had begun after an April attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 Indian civilians. India blamed Pakistan, which denied the charge and called for a 'credible, independent, transparent' investigation.
On May 7, India launched strikes inside Pakistani and Pakistan-administered Kashmir territories. Pakistan responded via its air force, claiming to have downed at least six Indian jets. India confirmed losses but did not specify numbers.
The conflict escalated as both sides exchanged drones for three days and eventually launched missiles at military targets on May 10. It ended only after intense backchannel diplomacy, particularly involving the US, led to a ceasefire.
Trump reiterated his role on Wednesday. 'I stopped the war between Pakistan and India. This man [Munir] was extremely influential in stopping it from the Pakistan side, Modi from the India side, and others,' he said.
While Pakistan has acknowledged the US role, India insists the ceasefire resulted solely from bilateral dialogue. Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri stated on Tuesday that Indian PM Modi had spoken to Trump by phone to underscore New Delhi's view that there was no US-led mediation between India and Pakistan.
Arif Ansar, chief strategist at Washington-based advisory firm PoliTact, said Pakistan's military performance during the confrontation prompted Trump's engagement.
'It demonstrated that despite its political and economic challenges, the country can outmanoeuvre a much bigger adversary,' Ansar told Al Jazeera. 'This has led President Trump to engage with Pakistan's traditional power centres based on core strategic interests.'
That engagement has a long history.
Pakistan's relationship with the US dates back to its 1947 independence, after which it aligned with Washington during the Cold War. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan supported US objectives there, and the two collaborated closely to support the mujahideen that eventually forced Moscow to pull out its troops.
Subsequently, Pakistan also backed the post-9/11 US 'war on terror'.
However, over the years, many within the US strategic community also started questioning Pakistan's credibility as a reliable security partner, especially after 9/11 architect Osama bin Laden was found in Abbottabad, close to Rawalpindi, home to Pakistan's military headquarters in 2011.
Since the Taliban's return to power in August 2021, the strategic partnership has waned further. Pakistan has increasingly turned towards China for economic, military and technological support.
But Weinbaum said that since Trump returned to office, Pakistan has been getting respect that was lacking under the previous Biden administration.
Trump wanted 'counterterrorism assistance,' Weinbaum said – and seemingly got it.
On June 10, General Michael E Kurilla, chief of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), detailed how that cooperation led to the capture of the suspected Abbey Gate bomber.
'They [Pakistan] are in an active counterterrorism fight right now, and they have been a phenomenal partner in the counterterrorism world,' Kurilla said, in a testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in Washington, DC.
According to Kurilla, who also oversees the US military's Middle East operations including Iran, this progress, including the arrest of the Abbey Gate bombing suspect, was made possible due to direct coordination with Pakistan's army chief. 'Field Marshal Asim Munir called me to tell me they had captured one of the Daesh-K [ISKP or ISIS-K] individuals,' he said.
As the icing on the cake for the bilateral relationship, Weinbaum suggested, Pakistan has thrown in 'more goodies, such as a trade deal with no tariffs, offering rare earth minerals, and crypto'. Weinbaum previously served as an analyst for Pakistan and Afghanistan in the US State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
Rare earth minerals, critical for industries like defence, robotics and electronics, are among Pakistan's assets now being offered to foreign investors, including the US and Saudi Arabia.
Pakistan has also recently formed a crypto council and held talks with US officials to attract investment and partnerships.
Rumi called the Munir-Trump meeting 'historic'.
'The US wants Pakistan's help in de-risking regional volatility without offering much in return. For Munir, it's an opportunity to reassert relevance and perhaps negotiate manoeuvring space at home,' he said.
Historically, Pakistan's ties with the US have been largely transactional, particularly in the security sphere. US aid and investment often followed Pakistan's alignment with US strategic goals, helping build its infrastructure and military.
But the relationship has also been marked by distrust, with US administrations accusing Pakistan of double-dealing, while Pakistan claims the US has failed to respect the sacrifices it has made while siding with them.
Whether this latest engagement proves to be another fleeting phase or a more durable alignment remains to be seen, say experts.
Rumi, the New York-based academic, said the US has traditionally engaged Pakistan when it needed to, and retreated when it could.
'Unless this relationship is institutionalised, beyond the security lens with which it is viewed, it's another tactical romance. And like past dalliances, it could fade once strategic goals are met or regimes change,' he said.
Ansar added that Pakistan again stands on the brink of a major strategic choice amid the global power shift.
'Much depends on whether it leans toward China or the US. That decision is also tied to the evolving Israel-Palestine conflict and the role of Iran,' he said.
But Weinbaum, the former State Department official, described the reset in ties as temporary, as 'nothing is permanent in this administration'.
'If Pakistan does play some role in the Iran crisis, they have could have more substantial meaning to these ties. But it needs to be prepared that there is nothing settled with this administration. It can change on a dime, at any hour,' he said.
The military remains Pakistan's most powerful institution, exerting enormous influence over politics and society.
It has ruled directly for more than three decades, and the current government, elected in a controversial vote last year, is widely seen as secondary to the military leadership under Munir.
This is consistent with historical precedent. Pakistan's first military ruler, Field Marshal Ayub Khan, had close ties with the US in the 1960s. Subsequent military rulers, including General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s and General Pervez Musharraf in the 2000s, also maintained strong US relations. All three were hosted by US presidents at the White House – but only after they became heads of state.
Munir, now only the second Pakistani to hold the rank of field marshal after Khan, reinforces the perception that Pakistan's real power remains with the military, despite the presence of a civilian government, say experts.
Still, CUNY's Rumi said it was important not to 'confuse symbolism with transformation'.
'This [Trump-Munir] meeting validates the enduring military-to-military track in US-Pakistan [ties], but it also bypasses the civilian setup, which should worry anyone rooting for democratic consolidation. If this is the 'reset,' it's one where khaki once again trumps ballot,' he cautioned, referring to the colour of the military's uniform.
Ansar from PoliTact concurred, saying that the meeting reflects adversely on the civil-military balance in Pakistan, as it showed who remains the 'real power bearer' in Pakistan.
'In the long run, these dealings in the past have led to tremendous political, economic and security-related repercussions for the nation [Pakistan],' he said.
'But additionally, it has promoted a norm that critical decisions impacting the nation must be made in private without discussion, consensus or public ownership. This results in increased societal and political disillusionment regarding the future of the country.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump says US intelligence ‘wrong' about Iran not building nuclear bomb
United States President Donald Trump has said his director of national intelligence was 'wrong' when she testified that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had not re-authorised the country's suspended nuclear weapons programme. The comments come after Trump earlier this week cast doubt on Tulsi Gabbard's March 25 report to Congress, in which she reiterated the US intelligence community's assessment. On Tuesday, Trump told reporters, 'I don't care' that the intelligence community's finding contradicted his own claims, saying Iran was in the late stages of developing a nuclear weapon. But speaking on Friday, Trump went further. A reporter asked, 'What intelligence do you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community said they have no evidence.' The president responded, 'Then my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?' 'Your DNI [director of national intelligence], Tulsi Gabbard,' the reporter replied. 'She's wrong,' Trump said. It is extremely rare for a US president to openly contradict the country's intelligence community, with critics accusing Trump of flagrantly disregarding evidence to justify potential direct US involvement in the fighting, according to Al Jazeera's senior political analyst Marwan Bishara. 'This is not just one person, one team saying something,' Bishara said. 'It's the entire intelligence community in the United States. That he would dismiss them … it's just astounding.' Speaking on Friday, Trump also appeared to downplay the prospect of the US brokering a ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel, saying he 'might' support such a deal, while adding, 'Israel's doing well in terms of war, and I think you would say that Iran is doing less well.' 'It's hard to make that request right now. When someone's winning, it's harder than when they're losing,' he added. Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera's Heidi Zhou Castro noted that Trump was 'really making a point that he's not going to make an effort to ask Israel to ease up on its aerial bombing of Iranian targets'. 'It seems that Trump is very squarely on Israel's side as things are progressing, and … it appears that he is not leaning towards the diplomacy route, though, again, he is giving himself that two weeks' time to make a final decision,' she said. Trump on Thursday said he would take two weeks to decide the US response to the conflict. Experts say the decision would likely be transformative. The US is seen as one of the few countries with the leverage to pressure Israel to step back from the brink of wider-scale regional war. At the same time, the involvement of the US military is seen as key to Israel's stated mission of completely dismantling Iran's nuclear programme, which hinges on destroying the underground Fordow enrichment plant. A successful attack on the facility would require both Washington's 30,000-pound (13,000kg) GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator and the B-2 bombers needed to deliver it. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Trump also downplayed the potential role of European countries in de-escalating the situation. That came hours after Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met the top diplomats from France, the UK, Germany and the EU in Geneva. 'Europe is not going to be able to help,' the US president said.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump calls for special prosecutor to investigate 2020 election
Trump revives longstanding grievance as the White House is consumed by a foreign policy decision on whether to get directly involved in the Israel-Iran war. US President Donald Trump has called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden, repeating his baseless claim that the contest was marred by widespread fraud. In a post on Truth Social, the president criticised Biden on immigration issues and said he lost the 2020 presidential election by a 'LANDSLIDE'. 'Biden was grossly incompetent, and the 2020 election was a total FRAUD!' Trump said. 'The evidence is MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING. A Special Prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin!' Trump's revival of his longstanding grievance, which comes as his White House is consumed by a hugely substantial foreign policy decision on whether to get directly involved in the Israel-Iran war, is part of an amped-up effort by him to undermine the legitimacy of Biden's presidency. Earlier this month, Trump directed his administration to investigate Biden's actions as president, alleging aides masked his predecessor's 'cognitive decline.' Biden has dismissed the investigation as 'a mere distraction'. The post also revives Trump's claim that the election was stolen, even though courts around the country and a Trump attorney general from his first term found no evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome. The Department of Homeland Security's cybersecurity arm pronounced the election 'the most secure in American history'. And in 2022, the House of Representatives January 6 committee's final report asserts that Trump criminally engaged in a 'multi-part conspiracy' to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 presidential election and failed to act to stop his supporters from attacking the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Advertisement Trump's repeated, false claims of widespread voter fraud resonated with his supporters, the committee said, and were amplified on social media, building on the distrust of government he had fostered during his four years in office. Sign up for Al Jazeera Americas Coverage Newsletter US politics, Canada's multiculturalism, South America's geopolitical rise—we bring you the stories that matter. Subscribe Your subscription failed. Please try again. Please check your email to confirm your subscription By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy protected by reCAPTCHA It was unclear what Trump had in mind when he called for a special prosecutor, but in the event Attorney General Pam Bondi heeds his call, she may face pressure to appoint someone who has already been confirmed by the Senate. A Department of Justice spokesperson declined to comment Friday. The Justice Department, in recent years, has appointed a succession of special counsels – sometimes, though not always, plucked from outside the agency – to lead investigations into politically sensitive matters, including conduct by Biden and Trump. Last year, Trump's personal lawyers launched an aggressive, and successful, challenge to the appointment of Jack Smith, the special counsel assigned to investigate his efforts to undo the 2020 presidential election and his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. A Trump-appointed judge agreed, ruling that then-Attorney General Merrick Garland had exceeded his bounds by appointing a prosecutor without Senate approval and confirmation, and dismissed the case. That legal team included Todd Blanche, who is now deputy attorney general, as well as Emil Bove, who is Blanche's top deputy but was recently nominated to serve as a judge on a federal appeals court.
Al Jazeera
8 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Has Trump put off joining the Israel-Iran conflict for two weeks?
Trump appeared to delay US action on Iran for two weeks on Thursday, but is it just a negotiation tactic? United States President Donald Trump will decide Washington's course of action in relation to the Israel-Iran conflict in two weeks' time, the White House said on Thursday. Speculation has been rising this week that the US could decide to assist its longstanding ally, Israel, in strikes against Iran, which it claims are designed to neutralise Iran's nuclear programme. In particular, Israel wants the US to provide 'bunker buster' bombs, which may be able to penetrate deep within the mountain in northwest Iran, where the Fordow nuclear facility is located. This comes after a week of Trump shifting his position on the conflict. Here is what we know: What has Trump said about potential US action in Iran? On Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared what she described as a direct quote from the US president with reporters: 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.' How has Trump changed his position on the Iran-Israel conflict? When Israel first attacked Iran late on June 13, the Trump administration clearly stated that it had not been involved, calling Israel's attack 'unilateral action'. It has become clear since then, however, that the US did have knowledge of the attacks in advance. Trump also said he believed Iran was 'very close' to having a nuclear weapon during the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Canada this week, contradicting his own US intelligence reports. This marked a shift from his position in May, when he made public statements that Tehran and Washington were close to a nuclear deal. Advertisement On Wednesday, Trump refused to say whether the US would join the conflict. 'I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do,' he told reporters outside the White House. Finally, on Thursday, Trump appeared to give a two-week deadline for talks with Iran to succeed before the US would take action. Sign up for Al Jazeera Americas Coverage Newsletter US politics, Canada's multiculturalism, South America's geopolitical rise—we bring you the stories that matter. Subscribe Your subscription failed. Please try again. Please check your email to confirm your subscription By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy protected by reCAPTCHA Does this mean Trump has delayed a US attack on Iran for two weeks? No. It also does not necessarily mean the US will attack Iran at all. Leavitt remained ambiguous on what could happen after two weeks. The press secretary said: 'The president is always interested in a diplomatic solution … he is a peacemaker-in-chief. He is the peace-through-strength president. And so, if there's a chance for diplomacy, the president's always going to grab it. But he's not afraid to use strength as well.' But Mona Yacoubian, senior adviser and director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), said that while two weeks would give time for more negotiations with Iran, it would also provide the US with time to 'flow in additional forces should it decide to join Israel in the conflict'. For now, it is impossible to say which of these two possibilities is more likely – or if the 'two weeks' mentioned by Trump is even a deadline at all. 'I don't even know if President Trump knows what he wants,' Iranian American analyst Negar Mortazavi told Al Jazeera. 'He campaigned as the president of peace … he promised he's going to end conflicts. Russia-Ukraine hasn't ended. Gaza has escalated, and he just let the third big Middle East war, which looks like a regime-change war, start under his watch. So, he says one thing. He does another.' Others believe Trump's 'two weeks' comment is a negotiation tactic to apply pressure on Iran during talks. Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, told Al Jazeera that Trump could be attempting to build leverage with threats to strong-arm Iran into accepting his demands of 'total surrender'. 'I think he's trying to present himself as this madman who is unpredictable, and in so doing, he can then insist on this very hard line that Iran has refused to accept for decades of full dismantlement of its [nuclear] enrichment programme,' Abdi told Al Jazeera. 'The delay certainly could be part of a broader negotiating strategy which exploits Iran's weakened position as a result of wide-ranging military strikes to extract more substantial concessions from Iran on the nuclear issue and potentially on other points of contention as well, for example its ballistic missiles programme,' Yacoubian said. Advertisement 'It's extremely difficult to predict what will happen next,' she added. 'President Trump's idiosyncratic negotiating strategy alongside his instinctual, 'from-the-gut' decision-making approach underscores the unpredictability of the coming days – which may well be the point!' Has Trump declared deadlines before, and has he stuck to them? In the past, Trump has assigned similar timelines relating to Iran's nuclear programme, the Russia-Ukraine war and global trade tariffs. But he does not always stick to them. 'Imposing deadlines stands as perhaps the one predictable element of Trump's approach to finding solutions to complex problems,' said Yacoubian. 'Setting explicit deadlines has characterised Trump's negotiating style in several realms, from Ukraine to politically sensitive domestic challenges.' Iran-Israel conflict In the lead-up to the current conflict, Trump says he gave Iran a 60-day deadline to negotiate an agreement over its nuclear programme, but talks continued beyond its expiry, Yacoubian noted. In the end, it was Israel which took action, launching a series of strikes on Iranian military and nuclear sites on June 13. Russia-Ukraine war Since the beginning of his presidency in January this year, Trump has been attempting to lead peace negotiations to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. On May 28, Trump set a two-week deadline to determine whether his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, was willing to end the conflict. Trump told reporters then: 'Within two weeks. We're gonna find out whether or not [Putin is] tapping us along or not. And if he is, we'll respond a little bit differently.' As the two-week window approached an end, the New York Post asked Trump in a podcast whether Putin cared about Russia losing thousands of soldiers in Ukraine. He said, 'I'm starting to think maybe he doesn't.' Since the two-week window ended, Russia and Ukraine do not appear to be any closer to a peace agreement. But Trump has not signalled a shift in US policy towards Russia despite his previous threat. A report by the Reuters news agency, published on Tuesday, further claimed that the Trump administration had disbanded an interagency working group aimed at placing pressure on Russia to speed up talks with Ukraine. Reuters cited three unnamed US officials in its report. The existence of this working group had not been made public. Trade tariffs Trump has also announced pauses and delays to his on-again-off-again trade tariffs first imposed on trading partners of the US in April. In April, he announced a 90-day pause for all its tariff targets except China, with which the US reached a trade deal earlier this month. The tariff pause is set to expire on July 8. However, on June 11, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told lawmakers that Trump was likely to push back the July 8 deadline.
