America is making a dangerous bet by trading principles for short-term expediency in its engagement with Pakistan

Mint

4 hours ago

Srinath Sridharan Washington under Trump opting to engage with Pakistan's military chief despite Rawalpindi's record on terror undermines the values the US champions. Transactional geopolitics may serve the short-term interests of some, but cannot shape the destiny of nations that seek dignity, stability and peace. The US–Pakistan relationship has long been a case study in diplomatic cynicism.
Gift this article
'I love Pakistan," said US President Donald Trump this week, quickly following up with another flourish: 'I stopped the war." He was referring to the ceasefire that followed India's Operation Sindoor, implying that his intervention averted an escalation between two nuclear powers.
'I love Pakistan," said US President Donald Trump this week, quickly following up with another flourish: 'I stopped the war." He was referring to the ceasefire that followed India's Operation Sindoor, implying that his intervention averted an escalation between two nuclear powers.
In a country where 'I love New York" or 'I love Boston" merchandise is part of pop-cultural retail tradition, it is perhaps the first time that a sitting American president has publicly professed such open affection—not for a US city but for a foreign nation, and one long entangled with terror networks and given to military overreach.
Also Read: Pakistan's economy must escape the clutches of its armed forces
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi promptly corrected the record the same day, clarifying (yet another time) that it was Islamabad that had sought de-escalation unilaterally.
But Trump's insistence on claiming credit for a crisis he neither resolved nor influenced reveals a deeper, far more disturbing pattern: America's habitual romanticism of tactical deals with regimes entangled in terrorism while ignoring the long-term consequences for regional stability.
This is not just bad optics. It is bad policy.
The US, once considered the torchbearer of democratic values, seems increasingly willing to bypass elected governments in favour of military establishments and shadow power centres. Nowhere is this more evident than in its dealings with Pakistan.
A nation that has harboured extremist groups, undermined civilian authority and used terror as statecraft continues to enjoy relevance in Washington's foreign policy playbook. The White House praises the arrest of a single militant as evidence of cooperation, even as Pakistan's terror infrastructure remains intact—undisturbed, deliberate, and institutional.
Also Read: Nitin Pai: How to dissuade Pakistan from deploying terrorism
It is hard to ignore the irony. America claims to lead the free world, yet chooses to transact with regimes that represent the antithesis of the values it espouses. The consequence is moral abdication.
This dynamic plays out repeatedly: from the resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan to the safe haven for Osama bin Laden near a military cantonment in Abbottabad in Pakistan; from cross-border attacks in Mumbai, Pathankot, Pulwama and Uri to the continued radicalization in Pakistan's heartlands.
The fingerprints are clear. So is the complicity. Yet, the US persists in treating Islamabad as a necessary partner—sometimes to broker influence in Kabul, other times to play the middleman in Kashmir, and often just to retain access and leverage in the region.
It would be naïve to believe that the US-Pakistan relationship incentivizes reform. In truth, it legitimizes impunity. The Pakistani military, emboldened by its transactional value to Washington, continues to weaken democratic institutions at home and fund destabilizing proxies abroad.
Every such engagement strengthens the perception that terrorism can be bartered for aid and extremism for arms.
The contradiction becomes even sharper when viewed in the context of the Indo-Pacific. The US claims to rely on India as a democratic counterweight to China. It deepens defense ties, invests in the Quad and speaks of a free and open Indo-Pacific.
Yet, it simultaneously chooses to ignore the very forces that threaten that vision by rewarding a regime that profits from regional unrest. This inconsistency is not lost on New Delhi.
The US–Pakistan relationship has long been a case study in diplomatic cynicism. From selective partnerships to a repeated pattern of 'doing more" without consequence, Washington is an expert in the language of strategic necessity while turning a blind eye to long-term costs.
But tactical flexibility cannot replace principled engagement. It does not produce allies; it breeds dependencies. Pakistan, meanwhile, has mastered the art of offering just enough cooperation to keep US interest alive while maintaining its core strategy of plausible deniability and proxy warfare.
Credibility, not convenience, must now become the real currency of global order. Especially in a world grappling with great-power tensions—from Ukraine to the Taiwan Strait to West Asia—the US must ask itself a fundamental question: Can it afford to keep trading principles for short-term proximity?
The answer becomes clearer when we examine Washington's recent diplomatic posturing over multiple global flashpoints—Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Iran and India-Pakistan. In each, the pattern is strikingly similar: choreographed pronouncements of peacemaking, fleeting moments of engagement and self-congratulatory claims of having 'brokered peace."
For India, the implications are significant. A natural partner to the US, India must now calibrate its engagement with clarity and conviction. If the foundation of partnership is shared democratic values, then New Delhi must insist on consistency, not just in defence or economics but in principle.
A rules-based international order cannot be built on selective amnesia or political expedience. It requires holding rule-breakers accountable. And it demands that peace not be sacrificed at the altar of tactical diplomacy.
Affection in diplomacy is not measured by slogans, but by the values one chooses to embrace—and the silences one is willing to overlook.
India, with its civilizational depth and global aspirations, must engage the world on its own terms. Our diplomacy must be grounded in self-respect, not shaped by shifting Washington moods.
Because, at the end of the day, transactional geopolitics may serve the short-term interests of some, but cannot shape the destiny of nations that seek dignity, stability and real peace.
The author is a corporate advisor and author of 'Family and Dhanda' Topics You May Be Interested In