US Policy Toward Pakistan: A Failed Approach
For many years, US policy regarding Pakistan has seemed to follow a repetitive, ineffective pattern. The focus has often been on supporting military leaders while neglecting the actual needs of the populace. This so-called “strategic convenience” has led Washington to back military rulers who not only undermine democracy in Pakistan but also fail to provide significant benefits to the US beyond empty pledges.
Interestingly, despite the deep divisions in American politics, both major parties have consistently aligned on issues related to Pakistan.
Initially, there was hope that President Trump would change this cycle, but he continued the trend. His administration further endorsed policies reminiscent of the Biden era, supporting the current military regime in Pakistan, which has engaged in election manipulation and unconstitutional actions, all while keeping the country’s most popular leader, Imran Khan, behind bars.
The Biden administration hasn’t just mimicked Trump’s approach domestically; it has also pursued what are termed “Trump-like” and “populist” leaders globally. Imran Khan, who had effectively collaborated with Trump on Afghanistan and resisted Biden’s stance on the Ukraine war, ultimately suffered severe repercussions, losing his position due to actions taken by his Army Chief.
When Trump returned to office, many hoped it would signal a shift for the Pakistani people and their diaspora in the US. Trump reportedly wanted to reverse Biden’s policies that favored military rule in Pakistan and facilitate Khan’s release. After all, both faced similar challenges from entrenched powers.
Strangely enough, six months into Trump’s presidency, a rare bipartisan consensus surrounding Pakistan emerged in Washington. However, this is more about short-term expediency than about long-lasting solutions, and it risks creating a disastrous outcome.
This situation should ring a bell. There was a time when Iran was America’s closest ally in the Middle East, as were Israel and Saudi Arabia. What went wrong? The US prioritized immediate gains over sustainable strategies.
Back in 1953, the CIA helped overthrow Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosadegh, ensuring the Shah’s continued rule. Over the following decades, the US consistently ignored the Iranian people’s aspirations, leading to the 1979 revolution and Ayatollah Khomeini’s rise—consequences still felt today.
Today, similar mistakes are apparent in Pakistan. By supporting an unpopular military regime and sidelining civilian leaders, the US risks creating a breeding ground for extremism. With figures like Khan out of power, groups such as the Muslim TLP are gaining traction—a situation that presents a disturbing possibility for the US.
You have to wonder: why do US presidents keep falling for these military dictators in Pakistan? The answer lies in the dictators’ savvy manipulation of American fears. They portray themselves as bulwarks against terrorism, chaos, and nuclear threats, yet often contribute to those very issues.
This enduring cycle seems predictable. Military leaders assure cooperation, do just enough to keep aid flowing, and then consolidate power. The US remains entangled in Pakistan’s volatility, with the Pakistani people bearing the brunt of the chaos. Meanwhile, America’s credibility diminishes. Simply put, the “military first” policy doesn’t truly stabilize Pakistan—it merely fuels radicalism using taxpayer dollars.
On a more hopeful note, the Pakistani people haven’t lost faith in democracy. Despite facing coups, censorship, and oppression, there’s a persistent push for accountability and expression. Khan remains a figure of popularity, even from his prison cell. There’s a clear desire for democratic governance, and there were hopes that President Trump might take a different approach from his predecessors.
Unfortunately, it seems Washington remains unable to recognize this reality. By continuing to side with military rulers, the US is not securing stability but rather jeopardizing both Pakistan’s future and its own interests.
The crux of the matter is this: if the US persists in supporting military rule in Pakistan, it risks losing the country just as it lost Iran. The allure of short-term “convenience” leads to long-term hostility, leaving America grappling with the fallout of what could have been a vital partnership.
The path forward is straightforward. President Trump can choose to perpetuate the illusion that military dictators will follow through on their promises or he can break the cycle, stand with the Pakistani people, and advocate for genuine democracy.
History has already laid out this cautionary tale. The only remaining question is whether anyone in Washington is willing to heed it.
