In the complex interplay of great power politics in South Asia, the triangular relationship between the United States, India and Pakistan reveals a story. It is one about enduring strategic necessity as much as it is about the contest of political ideologies, national interests and historical legacies.

United States President Donald Trump’s recent lunch with Pakistan’s Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir — a deliberate overture laden with both symbolism and nostalgia — resurrects the ghosts of Cold War realpolitik. Mr. Trump’s repeated claims, despite India’s persistent denials, of having brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, using trade as a lever, alongwith his high-profile interaction with the Pakistan Army chief at the White House signals an American eagerness to revert to a diplomacy of shortcuts.

The Trump administration’s transactional view of diplomacy, privileging deals over doctrines, has led to a turnaround in U.S.-Pakistan relations, casting a dark shadow over the delicate trust meticulously built through decades of U.S.-India counterterrorism cooperation as well as strategic convergence on China — a feat often regarded as one of the most creditable episodes of American diplomacy after the end of the Cold War.

America’s pronounced shift

Mr. Trump’s previous tenure as President was marked by an unusually blunt censure of Pakistan’s notorious double-game of a Machiavellian policy of cooperating with western countries in counterterrorism, while simultaneously supporting terror outfits that serve its regional interests. This stance had struck a chord with New Delhi’s unyielding approach toward terrorism, buttressing an already blooming ‘natural partnership’ with Washington. Yet, in the Trump administration’s second tenure, a perceptible pivot has taken shape.

Very early on, the Trump White House reopened channels of security assistance to Pakistan, notably authorising $397 million to sustain Islamabad’s F-16 fleet – ostensibly for counter-terrorism purposes. Public acknowledgments from top American military officials, terming Pakistan as a “phenomenal partner” together with Mr. Trump’s own gestures of gratitude toward Pakistan’s cooperation in counter-terror operations, reveal an unmistakable recalibration that privileges immediate strategic utility and transactional gains over previously cultivated long-term vision of bilateral relationship. By lauding Pakistan’s knowledge of Iran as “better than most”, Mr. Trump has hinted at something far more combustible — that Pakistan’s military could become a potential asset in navigating the volatile theatre of Iran-Israel conflict.

This American shift has naturally caused concern in New Delhi as it could prove a serious impediment to India’s aspirations for a principled partnership with the Trump-led White House. The U.S., the self-styled custodian of a liberal international order that India has also sought to embrace, now appears to treat Pakistan not as a terror-permissive and nuclear-armed outcaste state, but as a strategic interlocutor deserving engagement. The recalibration is supported by multiple factors: economic incentives, personal rapport with Pakistan’s military leadership, and America’s continuing desire to retain leverage in Afghanistan, and the broader region surrounding China. For Pakistan, it represents a critical opportunity to retrieve lost diplomatic space and rehabilitate its tainted global image, though domestic political currents inject ambiguity into Islamabad’s willingness to fully embrace cooperation with Washington.

India’s doctrinal departure

Against this backdrop, the events of late April and early May have concretised the volatility inherent in South Asia’s security architecture. The devastating terror attack in Pahalgam unleashed a decisive Indian military response. India’s ‘Operation Sindoor’ marked a doctrinal departure from the long-standing policy of strategic restraint. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s declaration of a “new normal” has signalled a readiness to transcend previous thresholds, blending kinetic military retaliation with diplomatic campaign with the intent of isolating Pakistan globally and imposing accountability on the state apparatus that enables terrorist groups aligned against India. Mr. Modi’s depiction of the ceasefire as a mere pause highlights India’s broader aim to alter the calculus of Pakistan’s hostility, even as Beijing’s close ties with Islamabad and adversarial posture toward New Delhi amplify apprehensions of a two-front confrontation.

On the other hand, Pakistan has intensified its dual-track strategy that seeks to combine military posturing with diplomatic engagement with the U.S. with the aim of reviving international attention on the Kashmir issue. The unprecedented promotion of Asim Munir to the rank of field marshal also marks a consolidation of military primacy in Pakistan’s national security framework. This entrenchment of a “hard state” doctrine, characterised by centralised military authority which remains fanatically resistant to civilian oversight, underscores Rawalpindi’s determination to project unbending strength amid multiple internal and external pressures.

Simultaneously, Pakistan is attempting to capitalise on its geopolitical location and diplomatic slyness to maintain its indispensability in America’s current strategic calculations. Islamabad’s outreach to Washington, which is reflected in trade negotiations, concessions over rare earth minerals, and innovative economic partnerships entwined with American business interests, suggests a cunning charm offensive to sustain international attention and economic lifelines. It is a strategy that perhaps recognises its own limitations in raw military power and economic scale but leverages the geographic centrality and personal diplomacy to maintain geopolitical relevance.

The U.S.’s role in this volatile equation is characterised by a deliberate ambivalence that reflects the complexity of its competing priorities. Washington today seems to have become preoccupied to the point of obsession with tariff and trade, implying that India’s role in the Indo-Pacific attracts proportionately less attention than in the past, even though the Quad Foreign Ministers held their meeting in Washington on July 1.

New Delhi’s persistent rejection of any third-party mediation in Kashmir underscores its determination to keep its core security issues tightly within its own sovereign domain. On the contrary, a Beijing-aligned Pakistan is desperate to embrace American engagement, perceiving it as a means to keep Kashmir from fading into diplomatic obscurity and to counterbalance India’s manoeuvring space. However, any American effort to “hyphenate” New Delhi and Islamabad would run counter to India’s vision of itself as a rising global power, while undermining bipartisan consensus to deepen ties with the U.S.

What drives Pakistan’s relevance

Pakistan’s continued relevance in American foreign policy seems to be driven by immutable facts of geography as well as carefully honed craft of personal diplomacy, giving its military leadership an inflated sense of purpose and power. Situated at the crossroads of South Asia, Central and West Asia, and bordering Iran, Afghanistan and China, there are certain quarters in Washington prone to the view that Pakistan is an indispensable linchpin to America’s regional strategy, particularly in Afghanistan and Iran where its logistical and intelligence roles are still critical. This geographic leverage likely magnifies Pakistan’s diplomatic voice in Washington, reinforcing a perception in Rawalpindi that it could help Pakistan counter India’s superior economic and demographic credentials. Personal rapport in diplomatic corridors often translates into material and political support, ensuring Pakistan’s endurance as a contradictory, yet “phenomenal” partner.

As enduring strategic sympathy for India becomes hostage to the shifting sands of personality-driven politics in the U.S., and the ‘friend’ in the U.S.-Pakistan frenemy dynamic gaining the upper hand, a geopolitically conscious Washington must walk a delicate tightrope. Each party seeks to instrumentalise the U.S. to its own ends, while American policy oscillates between idealism, realism and transactionalism.

Vinay Kaura is Assistant Professor in the Department of International Affairs and Security Studies at the Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Rajasthan, and Non-Resident Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore

Published – July 02, 2025 12:16 am IST