When US wanted Iran and China to help Pakistan in war against India

The United States has bombed Iran using its strategic bomber aircraft fleet. This is an opportune time to recall the past friendship of the US with Iran and how at one point in the India-Pakistan war in December 1971, it wanted Iran to help Pakistan with urgent fuel supplies and also fighter aircraft to save the country from decimation at India's hands.
Declassified US State Department documents include minutes of a meeting held in Washington on December 9, 1971, which was chaired by Henry Kissinger, then national security advisor to US President Richard Nixon. In this meeting, the US officials worried about the lack of fuel reserves in West Pakistan and the fact that the Pakistani military would soon come to a standstill because its major fuel reserves had been destroyed by Indian attacks on the Karachi port.
Kissinger asked the officials if fuel supplies could be rushed from Tehran to Pakistan so that West Pakistan could be saved from being captured by India after the successful conquest of East Pakistan. In the same meeting, discussions were also held on supplying Pakistan with fighter aircraft from Iran and asking China to make threatening mocks on the border with India.
CIA Director Richard Helms informed the participants that in the last few hours, he had received a report from Karachi that the oil tanks there had been hit again, in the 12th or 13th air raid, and that six or eight of them had been burning.
'An ESSO representative has indicated that this means the loss of 50% of Karachi's oil reserves, which amounts to over 80% of the POL [petrol, oil, lubricants] for all of Pakistan. He estimates that they are left with a two-week supply, possibly less at the rate at which POL is now being consumed,' he said.
Kissinger asked the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas H Moorer for his estimate of the military situation. Moorer stated that in East Pakistan, in the absence of a ceasefire, it was just a matter of time until the Pakistan Army would be essentially ineffective.
'Their supplies are cut off and they have no air left. Any serious fighting could be over in ten days or two weeks, depending on whether the Paks continue to fight to the last man or whether they begin to surrender in large numbers, which does not seem to be in the cards now,' he said.
The admiral added that in West Pakistan, the Pakistanis are trying to occupy enough of Kashmir to give them a bargaining chip if and when there is a ceasefire. 'They are trying to block the main lines of communication. South of the Kashmir area, the Indians outnumber the Paks two-to-one, and they may plan to move south to Lahore, although there is no indication of that now. The best Pakistan can do is to gain as much control of Kashmir as possible,' he said.
Moorer added that the Pakistanis can operate for about three weeks or so. 'However, if there is a period of attrition, with no ceasefire, the Indians can hold out longer and the Paks have had it. Mrs. Gandhi has stated that her objective is to destroy the Pak military forces,' he said.
Kissenger asked whether in that case in a prolonged war, even if Pakistan got Kashmir, it would be unable to hold it and it would lead to the destruction of the Pakistan Army.
'Exactly. When East Pakistan is gone, the Indians will transfer their divisions to West-possibly four of the six divisions now in the East. This will take one to three weeks, depending on how much air they use. If the war continues to the end, the outcome for Pakistan is inevitable,' said Admiral Moorer.
At this point, John N Irwin, the undersecretary of state, mentioned a CIA paper, Implications of an Indian Victory Over Pakistan, that predicts the possible acceleration of the breakup tendencies in West Pakistan— possibly into as many as four separate states.
The admiral pointed out that the Indian objective was to take out the Pakistani tanks and planes. 'If they run out of POL and can't move, they'll be sitting ducks,' he said.
The meeting then discussed the possibility of trucking POL from Tehran. 'There is one road. We have one report that indicates that Chinese trucks are coming in but we don't know what they are carrying. Iran is the logical source of POL. I talked to the Turkish Chief of Staff at NATO and asked him how much assistance he thought Iran was prepared to give to Pakistan. He said he thought the Shah wanted to be helpful, but had one eye cocked on Iraq. In the end, he didn't believe the Shah would give significant assistance,' said the Admiral.
The documents also reveal that on instructions from Washington, a senior embassy official met the Shah of Iran in Tehran on December 8, 1971, to discuss the possibility of Iranian military support for Pakistan. The Shah stated that he had informed the Pakistani ambassador in Tehran that, in light of the treaty of friendship signed by India and the Soviet Union, he could not send Iranian aircraft and pilots to Pakistan. He was not prepared to risk a confrontation with the Soviet Union.
The Shah proposed an alternative way to support the hard-pressed Pakistani Air Force. He suggested that the United States urge King Hussein to send Jordanian F-104 fighters to Pakistan. The Shah in turn would send two squadrons of Iranian aircraft to Jordan to defend Jordan while Jordanian planes and pilots were in Pakistan engaged in support of fellow Muslims.
'The Embassy official indicated that, because of legal constraints regarding the use of military equipment provided by the United States, it would be difficult for officials in Washington to give permission for the transfer of the F-104s from Jordan to Pakistan, or to overlook their absence in Jordan. The Shah said that the United States could not hope to achieve the objective of bolstering Pakistan while maintaining that it was not involved in the effort,' the document says.
President Nixon, Attorney General John N Mitchell, and Henry Kissinger had earlier met on the afternoon of December 8, 1971, for an extended discussion of the crisis in South Asia.
Turning to the situation in East Pakistan, Kissinger warned that 'the Indian plan is now clear. They are going to move their forces from East Pakistan to the west. They will then smash the Pakistan land forces and air forces.' He added that India planned to 'annex the part of Kashmir that is in Pakistan.'
Kissinger went on to attribute to the Gandhi government the goal of balkanising West Pakistan into units such as Baluchistan and the Northwest Frontier Province. West Pakistan would become a state akin to Afghanistan and East Pakistan would equate with Bhutan.
Nixon said that he had given Prime Minister Indira Gandhi a warning during his dinner in Washington with her. 'I told her that any war would be very, very unacceptable.' Kissinger observed that any such warning obviously fell on deaf ears. 'She was determined to go.'
'As I look at this thing, the Chinese have got to move to that damn border. The Indians have got to get a little scared,' said Nixon. He instructed Kissinger to get a message to that effect to the Chinese.
Kissinger suggested that another pressure move would be to move a US aircraft carrier force into the Bay of Bengal. Summarising the decisions they were considering, Kissinger said, 'We should get a note to the Chinese, we should move the carrier to the Bay of Bengal.' Nixon interjected, 'I agree.'
Kissinger also pointed to the threat to West Pakistan, 'At this stage, we have to prevent an Indian attack on West Pakistan.' Nixon agreed. Kissinger continued, 'We have to maintain the position of withdrawal from all of Pakistan.' He stated that by introducing its military power into the equation, in the form of a carrier and other units from the Seventh Fleet, the US was seeking to prevent 'a Soviet stooge, supported by Soviet arms' from overrunning an ally.
Nixon returned to his conviction that China could exercise a decisive restraining influence on India. 'The Chinese thing I still think is a card in the hole there. I tell you a movement of even some Chinese toward that border could scare those goddamn Indians to death.' Kissinger agreed, 'As soon as we have made the decision here, we can then talk to the Chinese.'
Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger engaged in conversation outside the Oval Office. Source: US National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials Project Photo Collection)

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Mint

30 minutes ago

• Mint

There we go again: Will America ever rid itself of its Pakistan delusions?

Harsh V. Pant , Vinay Kaura US President Trump may have flattered Pakistan's General Asim Munir into tactical utility as it joins Israel's conflict with Iran. While India must stay alert to any Rawalpindi misadventure, these developments don't alter New Delhi's long-term strategic calculus. Trump's decision to engage directly and publicly with Pakistan's army chief through lunch diplomacy at the White House is hardly surprising. Gift this article 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. 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. Also Read: Pakistan's economy must escape the clutches of its armed forces 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. Also Read: Nitin Pai: How to dissuade Pakistan from deploying terrorism 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. Also Read: Pakistan's IMF bailout: Good money after bad again? 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. The authors are, respectively, professor of international relations, King's College London, and assistant professor, international affairs and security studies, Sardar Patel University of Police, Security & Criminal Justice. Topics You May Be Interested In

Business Standard

35 minutes ago

• Business Standard

Vijay Devarakonda booked under SC/ST act for remarks on tribal people

A case was registered against actor Vijay devarakonda under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, for his alleged remarks about tribal people during a movie pre-release event here, police said on Sunday. According to police, the actor allegedly compared the recent terror attack in Pahalgam to tribal wars from 500 years ago while speaking at the event in April this year. The actor made comments in April. However, based on a complaint a case underSC/ST Act was booked against him on June 17, a police official told PTI. The complaint filed by Nenavath Ashok Kumar Naik Alias Ashok Rathod, State President, Joint Action Committee of Tribal Communities alleged that the movie actor who participated in the pre-release event of the movie titled 'Retro', starring hero Surya, made comments that hurt the sentiments of the tribals and seriously insulted them aRathod alleged that Devarakonda compared tribes with Pakistani terrorists and his comments are perceived as racially offensive. On May 3, the actor posted a statement on X clarifying that there was no intention to hurt or target any community especially Scheduled Tribes whom he deeply respect and consider as an integral part of the country. If any part of my message was misunderstood or hurtful, I expressed my sincere regret. My only aim was to speak of peace, progress and togetherness. I remain committed to using my platform to uplift unify-never divide, the star said in the message. The police are investigating the case.

Business Standard

36 minutes ago

• Business Standard

Pakistan condemns US strikes on Iran after nominating Trump for Nobel Peace

Pakistan on Sunday condemned the United States' air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, calling them a 'violation of international law' and warning that the escalation could severely destabilise the region. The statement by Pakistan's Foreign Office came less than 24 hours after Islamabad formally proposed US President Donald Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, citing his diplomatic role in halting a military standoff between India and Pakistan. 'The US attacks on the nuclear facilities of Iran, which follow the series of attacks by Israel, are gravely concerning,' the FO said. 'These attacks violate all norms of international law. Iran has the legitimate right to defend itself under the UN Charter.' The US had struck Iran's Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites early Sunday morning in what Trump described as an effort to dismantle Tehran's nuclear programme. He also warned of additional strikes if Iran retaliated. 'Deeply disturbing' escalation, says Pakistan Pakistan warned that the 'unprecedented escalation of tensions and violence owing to ongoing aggression against Iran is deeply disturbing". It added that any further escalation would have 'severely damaging implications for the region and beyond". Calling for immediate de-escalation, Pakistan urged respect for civilian lives and property and proposed dialogue among all parties. 'Recourse to dialogue and diplomacy in line with the principles and purposes of the UN Charter remains the only viable pathway to resolve the crises in the region,' it said. Pakistan also stressed the need for "adherence to international humanitarian law" and warned against actions that could widen the conflict across the Middle East. Praise for Trump just a day earlier Islamabad's sharp criticism of Washington comes in stark contrast to its praise for Trump just a day earlier. On Saturday, the Pakistan government said it would recommend Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for his 'decisive diplomatic intervention' in defusing recent tensions between India and Pakistan. Pakistan's army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, had met Trump for lunch at the White House last week—the first such engagement between a US president and a serving Pakistani military leader. Munir reportedly thanked Trump for "mediating a ceasefire" during the four-day military exchange between India and Pakistan in April, which followed the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that left 26 Indians dead. Trump, speaking to reporters after the meeting, said, 'I stopped the war between Pakistan and India. This man [Munir] was extremely influential in stopping it from the Pakistani side. Modi from the Indian side… They are both nuclear countries. I got it stopped.' No response from major Pakistani political parties Despite the strong statement from the Foreign Office, leaders of Pakistan's main political parties—the Pakistan Muslim League (N) and the Pakistan Peoples Party—have not issued any comments on the US strikes. Munir was expected to use his White House visit to dissuade Trump from entering the Israel–Iran conflict, according to Reuters. Iran and Pakistan share close diplomatic ties, and part of the Iranian diplomatic mission in the US is represented through the Pakistani embassy in Washington, given the absence of formal US–Iran relations. (With inputs from agencies)