Trump's seduction of Asim Munir won't get him cheap labour to uphold American Peace
The gushing reception President Donald Trump gave to Field Marshal Munir—making him the first Pakistan Army chief not holding political office to visit the White House—has caused no small anxiety in India. For the first time since 26/11, the United States seems to be tilting toward Islamabad, with Trump insisting on playing peacemaker on Kashmir.
And yet, the effort can add up to little. Look at the old film of the imperial reception granted to Field Marshal Ayub Khan as he travelled through the United States in 1961. In the following decade, he lost a war and was rejected by his people and forced out of office by his brother officers.
To seduce Pakistani generals is a perilous project. Field Marshal Asim Munir was content with goat cheese gateau and caramelised onions over his rack of lamb. Field Marshal Ayub Khan, one account assures us , was present at a party where 19-year-old showgirl Christine Keeler wasn't wearing any clothes. There is the story —take it for what it is worth—that General Yahya Khan snubbed his key ally, the Shah of Iran, Muhammad Raza Pehlavi, as he was busy in the bedroom.
Trump's gargantuan vanity gives the impression that he's just after a Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, he seeks to resolve a fracture that has confronted American policy since the birth of India and Pakistan, one that defeated figures like General Dwight Eisenhower and Robert F Kennedy. The stakes are far higher than containing jihadists in Afghanistan: They go to the heart of America's projection of power in the Middle East.
Endless wars, Trump is discovering, will continue to be fought whether or not America continues to maintain the imperial presence that has upheld the global order across the Middle East. Iran is just one of many conflicts that might erupt across the region. To fight these wars of the future, Trump needs allies and partners—the cheaper, the better.
The eastern guard
Following the lessons of the war in Korea, the US persuaded itself it needed partners to secure its access to oil—to the great fields in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. In February 1951, a meeting of US ambassadors in the Middle East marked out Pakistan as one possible source of troops. Later that month, historian Robert McMahon has written, State Department officials based in South Asia concluded that Pakistan would be willing to commit forces to the Middle East, 'provided the Kashmir question is settled'.
Through 1951, gushing commentary on Pakistan's military size, its martial traditions, and its pro-Western leanings spread rapidly through the US establishment. Later that year, newly appointed as Pakistan's military chief, Ayub reached out to Washington, asking for discussions on his country's role in the Middle East.
America's strategic establishment was keen to take the bait. 'With Pakistan, the Middle East could be defended,' George McGhee, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African affairs, told a meeting at the Pentagon that summer. 'Without Pakistan, I don't see any way to defend the Middle East.' General Omar Bradley, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concurred, suggesting that the US should find means to arm both Pakistan and Turkey.
From America's point of view, Pakistani troops were desperately needed to stabilise a volatile region.
'Currently, the danger in this area to the security of the free world arises not so much from the threat of direct Soviet military attack as from acute instability, anti-western nationalism and Arab-Israeli antagonism,' read a paper from the National Security Council, approved by President Harry Truman in April 1952.
These concerns were adroitly manipulated by Pakistan. In a meeting that July, Ayub's Special Advisor on Defence, Mir Laik, requested $200 million worth of supplies for Pakistan's air force and army, as well as a substantial line of credit. The weapons, he told American Secretary of Defense Robert Lovett, were needed for use not against India, but against communist aggression.
Even though diplomats responsible for engaging India were less than enthusiastic, the proposal to arm Pakistan soon had overwhelming political momentum. Following a visit to Karachi, Vice President Richard Nixon told the National Security Council that Pakistan was 'a country [he] would like to do everything for'.
'The people have less complexes than the Indians. The Pakistanis are completely frank, even when it hurts. It will be disastrous if the Pakistan aid does not go through,' he added.
For its part, Pakistan had no interest in getting drawn into wars in the Middle East. It had manipulated American anxieties to secure its position against its principal regional rival.
Also read: To be or not to be? Trump's next call on Iran-Israel conflict will reshape West Asia
Fallout in Kashmir
The government of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru responded by hardening its position on Kashmir in response to these pressures, historian Paul McGarr observes. Talks between Nehru and Pakistan's Prime Minister Muhammad Ali Bogra in 1953, as well as with Ayub Khan in 1959, led nowhere. Later, six desultory rounds of dialogue took place between 27 December 1962 and 16 May 1963. India declined concessions beyond minor adjustments on the ceasefire line. For its part, Pakistan demanded that only the Hindu-majority parts of Jammu stay with India.
Frustration mounted in Islamabad over the Kashmir deadlock, with dramatic consequences. From the mid-1950s, American aid to Pakistan had played a dramatic role in modernising its infrastructure and enabling industrialisation. The country's annual GDP growth, between 4 per cent and 6 per cent, had earned Ayub extravagant praise from economists like Samuel Huntington.
To pressure the US, Ayub Khan reached out to China, organising an eight-day red-carpet visit for Premier Zhou Enlai in February 1964. From the colonial colonnades of Karachi's Frere Hall Garden, Zhou spoke of China's ancient trading relationship with the Indus plains and condemned the influence of colonialism. Newly elected US President Lyndon Johnson cancelled an invitation to Ayub Khan to visit the country after the Field Marshal publicly criticised the war in Vietnam.
From 1964, tensions began to build up over Kashmir, too. The disappearance of the Hazratbal relic in December 1963 led to anti-Hindu riots in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Kolkata's Hindus responded with an anti-Muslim pogrom, which led to hundreds of deaths. The Hazratbal crisis also led Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri to extend provisions of the Indian Constitution, which allowed New Delhi to exercise direct rule in Kashmir.
Led by Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Field Marshal Ayub Khan allowed himself to be persuaded that a limited war in Kashmir would compel the US and the United Kingdom to intervene again. The Indian Army, weakened by the war against China, would be in no position to widen the war, the argument went.
National Security Council staff member Robert Komer warned his bosses of what was coming. In a 22 October 1963 memorandum, he noted that the Pakistanis appeared to be deliberately building up tensions over Kashmir.
'I wonder if we aren't doing ourselves a disservice by our continued pressure on Kashmir,' Komer wrote.
Also read: Pakistan's coldness to Iran shows idea of Ummah is poetic illusion
Partners in crime
Islamabad's defeat in the 1965 war marked the coming of a long period of disengagement between the two allies. Though President Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, facilitated arms supplies from third countries like Iran in the 1971 war, the United States proved unwilling to directly intervene, documents show. Following the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, Pakistan proved critical in facilitating flows of jihadists and weapons to fight the Soviet Union. Aid diminished again after 1989, though, with the Soviet withdrawal.
Like the Afghan war had been for General Zia, 9/11 would prove a gift for another military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf. In 2011, though, President Barack Obama's government sharply reduced aid after the killing of Al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden. Trump further slashed funds after 2017, compelling Pakistan to turn ever-closer to China for support.
Islamabad emerged as a gun-for-hire to fight American regional conflicts, but not the partner for peacekeeping that the US had imagined it would become in 1951.
This is the relationship Trump hopes he will be able to resuscitate. America is today the largest oil producer in the world, and no longer needs the enormous system of Middle East bases it set up after 1947 to secure its energy.
'Keeping the region's shipping lanes, including the Strait of Hormuz, open to tanker traffic costs the Pentagon, on average, $50 billion a year—a service that earns us the undying enmity of populations in that region,' wrote scholar Arthur Herman in a superb 2014 analysis.
Like his predecessors, Trump is holding out the prospect of a deal on Kashmir, with some lashings of aid, to persuade Field Marshal Munir to take on the job. Will Trump succeed where his predecessors failed? Free lunches—especially third-rate racks of lamb, lacking the least hint of garam masala, ginger, garlic, and exotic women—are likely to get you only so far.
(Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
16 minutes ago
- News18
Iranians Must Reverse Their History For Redemption
Iranians have never been themselves since they ceased to be Persians, but it's never too late to reverse history. Now is the time On June 18, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a stark warning to the United States, declaring, 'Iran will never surrender". He said any American intervention in the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict would result in 'irreparable damage". He further vowed that Israel would face punishment, marking the sixth day of an unprecedented aerial war that has claimed hundreds of lives and targeted critical infrastructure across Iran. Indeed, Iran is proving no mean force in the conflict, as Tel Aviv, ravaged by Iranian missiles, bears witness to. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), forged in the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), may be weakened but not eradicated. The defiant Iranian stance comes amid escalating tensions in West Asia, fuelled by inflammatory remarks from US President Donald Trump and Israel's initiation of a relentless bombing campaign, including strikes on Tehran's nuclear and military facilities. As Israel targets a generation tied to the 1979 revolution, it needs to be seen whether resident Iranians would turn pro-US, as the Iranian diaspora has. Does Khamenei's tough talk echo a broader narrative about the resilience of his nation and its people? Nations are fundamentally defined by their natives, some of whom possess an indomitable spirit that defies defeat, even if they cannot always be ruled. Do Iranians have it in them? Certain peoples of certain lands cannot be defeated, only ruled with difficulty, as evident in Iran's current defiance amid extreme adversity. Russians, for example, fight like they play football — no great technique but brute force and sheer tenacity. The more they get killed, the more soldiers they send to the battlefield, as Stalingrad witnessed towards the end of WWII! Afghans and some Africans can be defeated but not ruled over. They will stay as anarchic as they have always been, whether under democracy, communism, monarchy or dictatorship. It's the essential culture that cannot be defeated in India. Even under some foreign influence, its basic Hindu nature cannot be obliterated. Is the Iranian mind similarly shaped? One is not sure. On the one hand, the Iranian diaspora is longing for assimilation with American society, their four-decade-old home. On the other, the world hardly gets to hear voices from resident Iranians, but have they been any better? IRANIANS HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN GULLIBLE Iran's history offers a complex backdrop to the question. Once the heart of the Persian Empire and a bastion of Zoroastrianism under the Sasanian Empire (224–651 CE), Iran underwent a profound transformation following the Arab Muslim invasion in 651 CE. The rise of Islam led to a steep decline in Zoroastrian followers, with their numbers dwindling to between 15,000 and 25,000 by 2012 in a population exceeding 82 million. The imposition of the jizyah tax and restrictive dhimmī laws under the Abbasids forced many Zoroastrians to convert or flee and seek refuge in India. This historical shift marked the beginning of Iran's transition from Persia to an Islamic identity, a change that was accelerated by foreign influences rather than an organic evolution. The 20th century brought further upheaval. The Pahlavi dynasty, particularly under Mohammad Reza Shah, sought to revive Iran's pre-Islamic heritage, valuing Zoroastrian contributions and enacting reforms to elevate minority status. However, the 1979 Islamic Revolution, led by Khomeini — backed by the CIA that went to the extent of hiring Saddam Hussein to assassinate the Shah, an attempt that failed — reversed these efforts, establishing a theocratic regime that suppressed secular and pre-Islamic traditions. This 'revolution' saw many Iranians — much like Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir valley since the reign of Sikandar Shah Miri (alias Butshikan) — flee abroad, diluting their cultural practices in diaspora. A contemporary dimension of this identity struggle must be highlighted: The role of US intervention. Recent protests, such as those sparked by Mahsa Amini's death in 2022 over the mandatory hijab law, were amplified by Western media and the Pentagon's propaganda machine as a ploy to undermine Iran's theocracy. While these protests symbolised resistance — women burning hijabs and cutting their hair in public — they subsided perhaps when the US deemed the ploy insufficient to topple the regime. Washington must be asked why it stopped echoing the voices of 'suppressed' Iranian women? Has the mission to free them been accomplished? Contrary to the media narrative, Iranian women are among the 'free-est" in the Islamic world, with minimal police action against hijab violations in rural areas, challenging the narrative pushed by some US-based Iranians who celebrate Israeli attacks. IRAN MUST TURN AROUND Drawing parallels with the tenacity of Russians, the anarchic resilience of Afghans and the enduring Hindu essence of Indian culture, a critical question must be raised about Iranians: Are they as resolute? Why did the people of Iran lose their pre-Islamic Persian identity, for example, not resisting the Abbasid invaders? If, today, some Iranian-Americans are praying for an end to the Islamic regime, have they forgotten that the country they are domiciled in now is the country that had orchestrated the fall of the Shah and replaced the secular leader with Ayatollah Khomeini in 1977-79? Are the Iranians destined to remain pawns in a geopolitical chess game forever? Will this pattern of foreign exploitation, where Iran's internal dissent is co-opted for geopolitical gain, reverse now, even after the dismantling of Iran's proxies, such as Hezbollah and the Assad regime in Syria, which has left Tehran vulnerable? Will the historically non-existent resilience of Iranians prove a wildcard? Iran's future hinges on its people's ability to reconcile their Persian and Islamic identities. To whatever extent the Mahsa Amini protests were true, external manipulation notwithstanding, it reflected a genuine yearning for freedom, aligning with a broader rejection of theocratic rule. The caveat that must be issued here is that US-backed regime changes warn against external solutions. Look at the pattern of American interventions wherever they succeeded: The US 'lost' Vietnam which was, thus, spared the horror. One of the worst students of the respective sociologies of other nations, the Americans have always left a nation-state they interfered in worse off when they left. Iran's liberation, if it comes, must depend on an internal awakening, drawing on its Zoroastrian and Persian roots, much like India's enduring Hindu culture. Speaking from an Indian perspective, neither the continuation of the pro-Pakistan, Islamist Iran that conventionally voted against New Delhi in UN forums on the question of Kashmir, nor a US-backed government that would never let India into the Chabahar port to counterbalance the Sino-Pakistani Gwadar port, is good. A CALL FOR SELF-DETERMINATION top videos View all As the aerial war rages and Khamenei's words resonate, Iran stands at a crossroads. If its people find resilience that they never did in the past, the world may get back glorious Persia, the people of which were essentially farmers but whose king build roads and ports, the language of which was influenced by fellow Indo-European Sanskrit, the science of which made one wonder how it could turn into an Islamic fundamentalist regime, and the economy of which, supported by King Darius' standardised currency, traded goods with India, China and the Roman Empire. (The author is a senior journalist and writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views) tags : Israel Iran tension Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 22, 2025, 20:39 IST News opinion Opinion | Iranians Must Reverse Their History For Redemption
NDTV
17 minutes ago
- NDTV
Despite Clashes With US Presidents, Netanyahu Usually Gets His Way
Jerusalem: A little over a month ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to have been shunted to the shadows by US President Donald Trump, who hopscotched the Middle East without visiting Israel, traditionally Washington's closest regional ally. Worse still, from Netanyahu's perspective, Trump lifted sanctions on neighbouring Syria - something Israel opposed - and talked up the prospects of securing a nuclear deal with Iran, something the prime minister has always cautioned against. Fast forward five weeks and the United States has bombed Iran's main nuclear installations, fulfilling a decades-old dream of Netanyahu to convince Washington to bring its full military might to thwart Tehran's atomic ambitions. The US attack underscores a broader truth that has defined Netanyahu's career: no matter how fraught his relationships with successive presidents, he normally ends up getting what he wants. For over three decades, Netanyahu has clashed - often spectacularly - with American leaders. He has lectured them, defied them, embarrassed them publicly and privately. And yet, across Democratic and Republican administrations, US military aid has flowed largely uninterrupted to Israel. Washington remains Israel's chief arms supplier and diplomatic shield. "He probably has concluded that he always gets away with it," said a senior United Nations official in Jerusalem who declined to be named. "It's hard to argue otherwise." Just one month ago, opposition leader Yair Lapid accused Netanyahu of destroying Israel's relations with the United States. This weekend's action represents the closest US-Israeli military alignment yet against a common adversary. Withstanding Pressure Netanyahu's belief in his ability to advance his agenda, and withstand American pressure when needed, has deep roots. Barely a month after becoming prime minister for the first time in 1996, he met President Bill Clinton in Washington and immediately rubbed him up the wrong way. "Who the f--- does he think he is? Who's the f---ing superpower here?" Clinton asked his aides afterwards, according to US diplomat Aaron David Miller, who was present. But vital US aid to Israel continued to flow - something that would remain a constant over the years. Netanyahu was voted out of office in a 1999 election and did not return to power until a decade later, by which time Barack Obama, a Democrat like Clinton, was in the White House. Relations between the two turned openly hostile, initially over Israeli settlement building in occupied territory that Palestinians claim for a future stake - a constant thorn in US-Israeli relations. Matters deteriorated further as Obama entered negotiations with Iran to curb its nuclear drive - a project that Israel said is aimed at creating atomic bombs and that Tehran has said is for purely civilian purposes. Netanyahu spoke to Congress in 2015 at the invitation of Republicans to denounce the prospective deal, without informing the White House. "(The accord) doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb," he said. Obama was widely reported to have been furious, but still, the following year Washington delivered the largest military aid package to Israel in US history - $38 billion over 10 years. Political analysts say Netanyahu takes US support as a given, confident that backing from evangelical Christians and the small Jewish-American community will guarantee that Israel remains well-armed, however much he antagonises the White House. Convincing Trump When Hamas militants launched a surprise attack on Israel in October 2023, then-President Joe Biden flew to Israel to show his support, authorising a huge flow of weapons to help with the conflict unleashed in Gaza. But relations between Netanyahu, a right-winger, and Biden, a Democrat, deteriorated rapidly, as Washington grew alarmed by the spiralling number of civilian deaths and the burgeoning humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian enclave. Biden held back on some heavy munitions deliveries and imposed sanctions on a number of violent Israeli settlers, so his defeat at the hands of Trump in last November's presidential election was celebrated by Netanyahu. Finally, he had a Republican in office at a crucial moment for Israel. However, things did not go smoothly, at least to start with. Like Biden before him, Trump was unhappy at the protracted conflict in Gaza and then he blindsided Netanyahu during a meeting on April 7, when he revealed that he was launching direct talks with Tehran aimed at finding a diplomatic solution to the protracted nuclear stand-off with Iran. But while Trump publicly positioned himself as a peacemaker, Netanyahu consistently pushed for military intervention. Although it is unclear if Netanyahu ever got him to say "yes" to Israel's war plans, it was at least not a "no", according to two senior US officials and a senior Israeli source. As soon as Israel launched its aerial war on Iran in the early hours of June 13, Israel pushed the United States to join in, urging Trump to be on the winning side of history, two Israeli officials said last week. "Mr President, Finish the job!" read large billboards that have popped up in Tel Aviv. The sense of relief when the US bombers struck Iran's most protected nuclear sites on Sunday was palpable. "Congratulations, President Trump. Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history," Netanyahu said in a brief video address. "May God bless our unshakeable alliance, our unbreakable faith," he concluded.
Hindustan Times
17 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Asaduddin Owaisi mocks Pakistan over US strikes on Iran: ‘Should Donald Trump win Nobel for this?'
As the United States struck three Iranian nuclear facilities overnight under what it called 'Operation Midnight Hammer', AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi asked Pakistan whether Donald Trump should win a Nobel Peace Prize for this. AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi also mocked Pakistani Army chief Asim Munir for having lunch with US President Donald Trump. (ANI) Owaisi also lambasted Washington and said that it was "never an honest broker". Follow Iran Israel war live updates The AIMIM chief's remarks come against the backdrop of the recent American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites as well as Pakistan's move to nominate the US President for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize. Pakistan had nominated Trump for the Nobel Prize, citing his "diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership" during the recent India-Pakistan conflict. "The US was never an honest broker. Whether it is Iraq, Libya or Palestine. The US is sitting completely silent on the ethnic cleansing taking place in Gaza," Owaisi told news agency ANI. He added that Washington's policy is to only "cover up the crimes of the Israeli government". Owaisi asked why "no one is talking about a genocide" that is happening in Gaza. ALSO READ | Donald Trump's plan, 125 aircraft, over 24 Tomahawk missiles: Pentagon reveals key details of Iran strikes "You went into Iraq, saying they were creating these weapons of mass destruction, and nothing was found over there. You removed Gaddafi in Libya, and nothing happened. Saddam was killed, and Gaddafi was killed. The US policy is only to cover up the crimes of the Israeli government. What is happening in Gaza? A genocide is happening, and no one is talking about it," the Lok Sabha MP said. Further, he questioned Pakistan's support for Trump and asked if they backed him only to see the strikes on Iran. "We should ask Pakistanis if they want Trump to get a Nobel Peace Prize..." Owaisi said, referring to the US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities in Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. ALSO READ | Iran President says US entered conflict after witnessing 'Israel's impotence' He also mocked Pakistan's top military leadership and asked whether Islamabad's Army chief, Asim Munir, had lunch with the US President for this (US strikes on Iran)? "They all have been exposed today," Owaisi added. The AIMIM chief further slammed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calling him a "butcher of Palestinians". "A genocide is happening in Gaza, and the US is not worried about it. This man (Netanyahu), he has butchered Palestinians... He is doing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. History will remember him as the butcher of Palestinians," he added. Owaisi also raised concerns over the chances of serious consequences for India if a full-scale war breaks out in the Middle East region. He cited that over 16 million Indians reside in the Gulf and the Middle East, saying that "if that area erupts in a war, which unfortunately is very likely, then it will have a grave impact on the Indians living there". US President Donald Trump, early on Sunday, announced that Washington carried out strikes on Iran's three nuclear facilities. Following this, he urged Iran to agree to end the war with Israel. Later, Trump also warned Iran that any retaliation from Tehran against the US "will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed" on Sunday.
