In a significant development, President Donald Trump has extended an invitation to ‘Field Marshall’ Asim Munir, the chief of Pakistan’s army, for a private lunch to discuss potential collaborations against Iran.
The crux of their discussion revolves around potentially persuading Pakistan to join forces with the United States—and, by extension, Israel—in efforts aimed at dismantling Iran’s nuclear ambitions, if not its regime altogether.
The origins of this proposed U.S.-Pakistan partnership remain ambiguous. Speculation suggests that Munir may have initiated this dialogue following a string of violent attacks by Pakistan-based terrorists in Indian Kashmir, where Hindu men were separated from their families and executed.
In retaliation, India launched significant military operations against Pakistan, targeting several airfields, elevating tensions in the region.
If this initiative stems from Munir’s strategy, it mirrors tactics previously employed by Iran itself. A historical glance reveals that in 1996, attacks initiated by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-backed terrorists targeted a U.S. Air Force barracks in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, with evidence pointing towards Iran’s culpability.
While President Bill Clinton grappled with options for military response, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami proposed a ‘dialogue of civilizations,’ a strategy seen as a diversion rather than a genuine reconciliation effort, effectively stalling any punitive measures against Iranian actions.
Speculation also arises about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s influence on Trump’s decision, advocating for an alliance with Munir. Erdoğan’s support may lead to a diplomatic triumph for Turkey and Pakistan as they navigate the complexities of an Islamist alliance.
Both Turkey and Pakistan have begun collaborating with groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, further blurring the lines between combating terrorism and fostering insurgent relationships.
In an effort to understand the implications of a U.S.-Pakistan alliance, it is crucial to reflect on past events. Notably, in 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the U.S. aimed to respond by supporting Afghan resistance. However, Pakistan’s regime used American and Saudi support selectively, favoring Islamist factions and sidelining more moderate secular groups.
A common misjudgment ensues in placing the blame for the rise of groups like the Taliban solely on the CIA; however, historical context reveals that the Taliban members were merely children during the Soviet invasion and later emerged under Pakistan’s manipulation rather than direct American intervention.
The unwavering support from Pakistan always comes with conditions. Over the years, the United States has imposed sanctions on Pakistan due to its nuclear activities and overt support for terrorist entities. The Symington Amendment in 1976 curtailed military sales to Pakistan due to its nuclear ambitions, but subsequent administrations waived these penalties, prioritizing strategic cooperation.
This pattern continued with the introduction of the Pressler amendment in 1985 and the sanctions after Pakistan’s 1998 nuclear tests, allowing for waivers under geopolitical necessities.
In a post-9/11 context, President George W. Bush similarly forgave Pakistan’s infractions to gain support against the Taliban, despite its notorious double-dealing.
Pakistan has accumulated billions in U.S. aid, continually evading accountability for its sponsorship of terrorism, and played a role in the murders of numerous Americans while simultaneously hosting Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden for years.
The underlying lesson, as captured by Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity, is that repeated actions without different outcomes point towards deeper issues of trust and efficacy. Trusting Pakistan seems an exercise in futility, particularly in light of its history of maintaining ties with terror networks.
President Trump would do well to recalibrate that trust, potentially recognizing that extending a free pass to Pakistan is neither beneficial nor justifiable.
Failure to confront this reality risks not only American interests but also the stability of regions embroiled in conflict. In light of Pakistan’s historical patterns, Trump would be wise to reconsider this alliance and to call Munir’s hand on potential actions that jeopardize peace and security beyond the borders of Iran.
image source from：meforum
