
US-India partnership key to re-establish Indo-Pacific deterrence
Originally published by Pacific Forum, this article is republished with permission.
The advent of the second Trump administration has had a defining impact on Washington's engagement with the rest of the world. The US-India partnership – often called a 'defining relationship of the 21st century' – stands at a critical phase with opportunities to scale amid the rapid shifts in global geopolitics, geo-economics, and the exponential growth in dual-use technologies.
In the last two decades, US-India relations, particularly defense ties, have seen greater military-to-military interoperability and bigger turnover in terms of defense trade.
The last one-to-one meeting between President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in February produced a forward-looking joint statement that, among many other initiatives, aimed to forge a stronger defense partnership in tune with the demands of the dynamic balance of power in the Indo-Pacific region.
As President Donald Trump, in his second term, recalibrates the US national security and defense strategies amid new terms of engagement with allies and partners, we argue that the US-India defense partnership has a new opportunity to scale cooperation in interoperability and defense industrial synergy to forge stronger deterrent capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region.
In his remarks at the Shangri-La Dialogue in May, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that the United States' priority on foreign policy matters would be the reestablishment of deterrence, especially in (but not limited to) the Indo-Pacific region.
It comes as no surprise that the purpose of this deterrence is countering the influence and the threat of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Hegseth stressed this administration's determination, like that of its predecessors, to remain engaged abroad, noting that the prosperity and security of Americans is linked to that of the rest of the Indo-Pacific.
The 2025 Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community also contends that 'Russia, China, Iran and North Korea – individually and collectively – are challenging US interests in the world by attacking or threatening others in their regions, with both asymmetric and conventional hard power tactics.'
In response to this threat, the US will not, in Hegseth's telling, 'preach' to other countries about how they govern themselves, nor does it seek to encircle China or execute regime change. It instead seeks to prevent war and prevent the PRC from carrying out its plans to annex Taiwan – and to do so via 'peace through strength':
President Trump has also said that Communist China will not invade Taiwan on his watch. So, our goal is to prevent war, to make the costs too high, and peace the only option. And we will do this with a strong shield of deterrence, forged together with you—America's great allies and defense partners. Together, we will show what it means to execute peace through strength.
While framed as a break from a previous administration that, in his telling, allowed deterrence to lapse, in at least one respect Hegseth built on the momentum of Trump 2.0's predecessor: developing bilateral ties with India.
Hegseth had his first call with Indian Minister of Defense Rajnath Singh in February, in which they stressed accelerating 'our operational cooperation and defense industrial and technology collaboration to deter aggression in the Indo-Pacific,' along with continuing the 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue and concluding the next 10-year US-India Defense Framework later in 2025.
The US-India relationship has seen a number of ups and downs, and the last two decades have been crucial in shaping the current contours. The relationship has the overall support of the major political parties on both sides, and the broader strategic convergence of counteracting China's assertive rise remains broadly intact, which is the mainstay of 're-establishing deterrence.'
More than any domain in which the bilateral relationship has grown, the defense sector stands out, through habits of cooperation developed at the tri-service level and the growing defense trade.
Moreover, the two defense industrial conclaves envision greater synergy, with a stronger role from the private sector, by following through on initiatives such as the US-India Roadmap for Defense Industrial Cooperation. Private sector partnerships include those between:
Those are examples of how Indian and American firms are coming together to co-produce the necessary goods for meeting the security challenges ahead. Recognizing the disruptive impact of new technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing, both sides have also announced the Autonomous Systems Industry Alliance (ASIA) aimed at scaling 'industry partnerships and production in the Indo-Pacific.'
During the last one-to-one meeting between President Trump and Prime Minister Modi, both sides showed intent to push ahead comprehensive cooperation through the US-India COMPACT (Catalyzing Opportunities for Military Partnership, Accelerated Commerce & Technology) for the 21st century.
From the Biden-era iCET (Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies) to the US-India TRUST (Transforming the Relationship Utilizing Strategic Technology), a whole-of-government and whole-of-nation approach is envisioned to leverage technologies for partnership in multiple sectors.
The integration of US-origin defense items into India's inventory in the last two decades appears significant, despite bureaucratic processes of defense sales and purchases that need fixing from both ends.
From heavy-duty transport aircraft and high-end attack helicopters to complex combat vehicles, missile systems and long-endurance unmanned systems, the partnership is growing in sea, land and air-based military assets.
The partnership will remain especially important for developing India's anti-submarine warfare capabilities in the Indian Ocean, along with other surveillance and reconnaissance systems for a more robust maritime domain awareness.
Follow-up will becrucially required to realize the benefits of the announcements made to 'to streamline defense trade, technology exchange and maintenance, spare supplies and in-country repair and overhaul of US-provided defense systems' and to open negotiations on a reciprocal defense procurement.
The Trump administration sounds bullish on the prospects of improving 'accountability and transparency through the foreign defense sales systems to ensure predictable and reliable delivery of American products to foreign partners and allies in support of US foreign policy objectives.'
Therefore, it is imperative for Washington and Delhi to work harder on a better alignment of their strategic objectives in the Indo-Pacific region that would, in turn, help streamline their vision of co-development and co-production in defense products and heightened cooperation in 'overseas deployments of the US and Indian militaries in the Indo-Pacific, including enhanced logistics and intelligence sharing.'
The US Congress-mandated Commission on the National Defense Strategy last year proposed, among other things, a US 'multi-force theater construct' to enable warfighting in simultaneous conflicts with multiple adversaries, and a pitch for an augmented use of the private sector in the US defense industrial base.
Therefore, for a critical stakeholder and major defense partner like India, how Washington's 're-establishing deterrence' pans out in the next few years will be crucial, for scaling the growing bilateral defense cooperation, and in minilateral groupings, such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue.
India and the United States likely will never be fully aligned on matters of security cooperation, as their differing responses toward Ukraine and Islamic terrorism originating from Pakistan illustrate.
However, these differences of opinion should not distract them, as both face a long-term challenge from a PRC that seeks to rewrite the rules of the Indo-Pacific region so crucial to both Delhi and Washington. Furthermore, as major Indo-Pacific powers with large populations and resources, both countries are well-situated to complement one another's efforts to deter Beijing's revisionism.
The early signs from the Trump administration's interactions with the Modi government are promising, and it is imperative that the momentum between them continues.
Monish Tourangbam (monish.tourangbam@crfindia.org) is a senior research consultant at the Chintan Research Foundation (CRF), New Delhi. Rob York (rob@pacforum.org) is director for regional affairs at Pacific Forum.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


South China Morning Post
28 minutes ago
- South China Morning Post
Will India and Canada move beyond ‘past rancour' and normalise ties quickly?
The move by India and Canada to reinstate high commissioners in each other's capitals marks an important step towards mending their frayed relationship after the 2023 killing of a Sikh separatist leader in British Columbia. Following a meeting between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney on the sidelines of this week's Group of Seven summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, both countries issued separate statements to pledge their commitment to strengthening bilateral ties. Analysts said the diplomatic move, which could bring about an easing of travel and visa restrictions and pave the way for deeper engagement in other areas, reflected a shared desire by Modi and Carney to move past the acrimony of the past two years. Modi described his talks with Carney as 'excellent', saying in a post on social media platform X that both leaders 'look forward to working closely to add momentum to the India–Canada friendship'. He identified trade, energy, space and critical minerals as areas of potential cooperation. A statement from Carney's office said the two leaders had agreed on the need to strengthen relations based on mutual respect, the rule of law and recognition of each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The positive tone arising from the meeting between Modi and Carney was a far cry from the nadir in the two countries' relationship in 2023 over the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen and the leader of a Sikh separatist movement in India. An accusation by former Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau that Indian agents were allegedly involved in the killing prompted a tit-for-tat expulsion of diplomats from both sides.


Asia Times
34 minutes ago
- Asia Times
Trump's path to Tehran: the making of a global bargaining chip
The second Trump administration no longer needs to prove its foreign policy instincts. They are clear, unmistakable and anchored in brute transactionalism. If the world learned anything from the former—and now resurgent—President Donald Trump, it is that he views diplomacy not as a delicate art of engagement but as a zero-sum game of power projection. His latest rhetoric and posturing over Iran, especially in the wake of Israeli operations and heightened regional tensions, suggest a dangerous and deliberate strategy: to reduce Iran to rubble, not only for the sake of containment but to bolster American dominance in trade negotiations with China and recalibrate all relationships—friends and foes alike—on Washington's terms. At the heart of this approach is Trump's insistence that Tehran must surrender unconditionally. This is not just hyperbole; it is a method. Trump thrives on spectacle and brinkmanship. His entire worldview is predicated on the belief that America is losing because it has been too nice, too generous and too forgiving. Therefore, for Trump to extract what he perceives as 'better deals' from China, Europe, ASEAN, Mexico and Canada, he must first demonstrate that the United States is willing and able to destroy one of its most intransigent adversaries—publicly, unmistakably and with overwhelming force. Trump's obsession with bunker-buster bombs is not new. During his first term, he repeatedly floated the idea of using high-yield ordnance to obliterate Iran's underground nuclear sites. While the Pentagon and international allies balked at the prospect, Trump's inner circle entertained such military options as ways to force diplomatic capitulation. In Trump's view, diplomacy begins only when the enemy lies broken or at least battered enough to come to the table begging. A full-fledged strike on Tehran, targeting its military-industrial infrastructure, would mark not only a significant escalation in the Middle East but a cornerstone of Trump's new foreign policy doctrine: militarized deal-making. The point is not merely to neutralize Iran but to demonstrate to Beijing, Brussels and beyond that Trump's America is prepared to shatter international norms to reassert dominance. By pulverizing Iran's defenses and forcing a surrender, Trump can create a shockwave that ripples through multiple geopolitical theaters. First and foremost is China. Beijing, already embroiled in a tit-for-tat tariff war with Washington, is being forced to reconsider its risk calculus. A United States that can unilaterally take down a major regional power signals a willingness to escalate beyond traditional economic warfare. Trump clearly wants China's leadership to understand that their negotiation counterpart is not a rational actor bound by global rules—but a strongman driven by prestige, leverage and personal victory. Second, Washington's allies would be caught in the moral and strategic dilemma of either backing Trump's new militarist campaign or risking their ties to the US economy and defense umbrella. Members of the European Union—especially France—may voice concern, but ultimately, many of them remain economically and strategically tied to the United States. The same dynamic plays out in Asia, where regional powers depend on US security guarantees while also being wary of American unpredictability. Third, Trump can use the devastation in Iran to undermine Russia's remaining influence in the region. With Iran weakened, Moscow's capacity to counterbalance US interests in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq will be significantly diminished. In this sense, Iran becomes both a target and a message: defiance will be punished, and accommodation will be rewarded—on American terms. Of course, bombing Iran is not without consequences. Trump's team understands the potential for a regional conflagration. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias in Iraq and the remnants of the Houthis in Yemen may launch retaliatory attacks on American interests and allies. But Trump, emboldened by a Republican-controlled Congress and the politics of spectacle, is likely to argue that such blowback is manageable—collateral damage in a global campaign to reassert American primacy. Israel, already engaged in shadow wars with Iran, would likely welcome such US involvement, seeing it as a decisive moment to dismantle the Islamic Republic's regional ambitions. For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this could be the culmination of a decades-long security doctrine centered on preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power or a hegemon. For Trump, Israel's support is not just strategic—it is deeply political. It energizes his evangelical base and signals to Washington's hawkish establishment that he is not just a deal-maker but a wartime president. In many ways, this is a return to a form of Nixonian 'madman theory'—showing unpredictability to coerce adversaries into submission. But Trump takes it one step further: unpredictability is no longer a tactic but a brand. From tariffs to trade deals, embassy relocations to drone strikes, Trump has shown that chaos is not a byproduct—it is the plan. Once Iran is bombed and coerced into surrender—should that scenario come to pass—Trump will likely position the act as proof that America is back, that it no longer tolerates deadbeat allies, hostile regimes or trade cheats. He will then pivot to Beijing, pressuring China to remove barriers to US exports, agree to more stringent intellectual property protections and halt its support for Iran and Russia. 'Look what happened to Tehran,' Trump might warn. 'Don't be next.' In Southeast Asia, where countries are watching this dynamic closely, the message is equally stark. Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand—economies with strong trade linkages to both China and the US—will face renewed pressure to pick sides. Trump's version of 'with us or against us' will come cloaked in tariffs, sanctions and security demands. Even countries that enjoy exemptions today—such as Malaysia's semiconductor sector—could find those favors withdrawn if they do not align with America's broader geopolitical stance. Trump's strategic calculus rests on one core principle: raw power, not persuasion. His demands for Iran's unconditional surrender are not driven by fear of a nuclear Iran—there is little concrete evidence Tehran is on the brink of weaponization but by a need to demonstrate overwhelming power. In other words, Iran is not the final goal—it is the opening move. In this worldview, multilateralism is obsolete, diplomacy is for the weak, and war—so long as it is winnable—serves a purpose beyond the battlefield. It is the ultimate bargaining chip. What the world must understand is this: Trump's warnings are not rhetorical flourishes. They are statements of intent. The drive to bomb Iran is neither about containment nor about peace. It is about leverage. It is about rebalancing global power by unbalancing the world. And in this dangerous recalibration, Tehran is just the first domino. Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is professor of ASEAN Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia, former head teaching fellow, Harvard University, and Cambridge Commonwealth Scholar Luthfy Hamzah is senior research fellow , Strategic Pan Indo Pacific Arena , Kuala Lumpur


HKFP
3 hours ago
- HKFP
EU bans Chinese firms from major state medical equipment contracts
The European Union on Friday banned Chinese firms from government medical device purchases worth more than five million euros (US$5.8 million) in retaliation for limits Beijing places on access to its own market. The latest salvo in trade tensions between the 27-nation bloc and China covers a wide range of healthcare supplies, from surgical masks to X-ray machines, that represent a market worth 150 billion euros in the EU. 'Our aim with these measures is to level the playing field for EU businesses,' the bloc's trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic said. 'We remain committed to dialogue with China to resolve these issues.' In response, China accused the EU of 'double standards'. 'The EU has always boasted that it is the most open market in the world, but in reality, it has gradually moved towards protectionism', foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said at a regular press briefing. 'Under the guise of fair competition (the EU) actually carries out unfair competition, which is a typical case of double standards.' The European Commission said in a statement the move was in 'response to China's longstanding exclusion of EU-made medical devices from Chinese government contracts.' Brussels said just under 90 percent of public procurement contracts for medical devices in China 'were subject to exclusionary and discriminatory measures' against EU firms. In addition to barring Chinese firms from major state purchases, 'inputs from China for successful bids' would also be limited to 50 percent, it said. Over the last three years, Brussels and Beijing have come into conflict in a number of economic sectors, including electric cars, the rail industry, solar panels and wind turbines. The decision on medical devices comes at a time of heightened trade tensions with President Donald Trump's United States, which has imposed customs surcharges on imports from all over the world, including Europe. The EU has decided to take a tougher stance on trade in recent years, adopting a vast arsenal of legislation to better defend its businesses against unfair competition. In April 2024, the commission opened an investigation into Chinese public contracts for medical devices, the first under a new mechanism introduced by the EU in 2022 to obtain better access to overseas state purchases. China, on the other hand, accuses Europe of protectionism. After a year of negotiations, the commission, which manages trade policy on behalf of the 27 member states, said it had failed to make any progress with China. 'The measure seeks to incentivise China to cease its discrimination against EU firms and EU-made medical devices and treat EU companies with the same openness as the EU does with Chinese companies and products,' Brussels said.