Recently, US President Donald Trump has praised Pakistan and its current leadership for providing invaluable support to Washington in the war against terrorism and in stabilizing the South Asian region. In this context, President Trump particularly thanked the Pakistani leadership for responding positively to the US call for a ceasefire in early May, during the armed conflict with India that was triggered by Delhi’s allegations against Islamabad following the Pahalgam terrorist attack in Indian-occupied Kashmir.

Why has President Trump suddenly started praising Pakistan, a country he showed little affection for during his previous tenure from 2016 to 2020? This is a crucial question that warrants serious attention. At present, the main target of both the US and Israel is Iran, a neighboring and friendly country to Pakistan. Thus, much of President Trump’s recent appreciation for Pakistan appears closely tied to Washington’s increasingly aggressive posture towards Tehran. In other words, President Trump likely seeks to bring Pakistan onto the US-Israeli side in their conflict with Iran.

The Trump administration may desire various forms of cooperation from Pakistan—ranging from political support to facilitation of military operations against Iran. Pakistan’s potential role in enforcing or supporting an economic blockade on Iran also seems to be under consideration in Washington. However, the extent to which Pakistan can or will accommodate these expectations is difficult to determine. What can be said with some certainty is that meeting all of Washington’s demands will be extremely challenging for Pakistan.

That said, in international politics, nothing is ever absolute. The only real measure of a country’s foreign policy is its national interest. Yet, even identifying that national interest can be a daunting task—especially in a politically unstable country like Pakistan. At this point, we are witnessing the emergence of a new US policy under President Trump toward Pakistan. The outcome of the most recent US presidential election is proving significant for global affairs, and Pakistan is no exception.

Indeed, President Trump’s proactive engagement with Pakistan stands in sharp contrast to the indifferent approach of his predecessor, President Joe Biden. Pakistan is already facing severe political and economic instability, and further deterioration is not in the interest of the United States or the broader international community. Therefore, Pakistanis must approach this situation rationally and without emotional bias.

It is a fact that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, and it is Pakistan’s good fortune that Washington continues to have strategic interests in the region. These shared interests have sustained the Pakistan-US relationship through numerous ups and downs over the decades. While the post-2001 era has seen the relationship dominated by the war in Afghanistan, reducing the bilateral dynamic solely to that conflict fails to capture the broader factors behind both the challenges and the potential for improvement in ties.

Moreover, given Pakistan’s dire macroeconomic situation, it is crucial for policymakers to understand that most international economic decisions are shaped by political considerations. The United States holds a dominant voting share in major international financial institutions—particularly the IMF—so Pakistan’s ability to secure economic relief packages is likely to depend, at least in part, on its willingness to accommodate US political interests.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the United States has maintained the following key objectives in Pakistan: (1) preventing the use of Pakistani territory by global terrorist networks; (2) ensuring the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal; (3) countering China’s growing influence in South Asia; and (4) maintaining regional stability, particularly in relation to Afghanistan and Iran. For Pakistan’s foreign policy to be effective and strategic, understanding these American priorities is essential.

These US objectives include securing Pakistan’s all-out support in the Global War on Terror (GWoT), encompassing military and counterinsurgency operations in the tribal areas, along with logistical and intelligence support primarily in Afghanistan and in other parts of the world such as Iraq and Yemen. Another key objective is preventing Pakistan from engaging in what Washington fears is the proliferation of nuclear materials and technology, particularly to Iran. Additionally, the US seeks Pakistan’s support in the reconstruction and stabilization of Afghanistan, in bolstering the US stance against Iran, and in exerting pressure on Islamabad to hand over control of Gwadar Port to American companies instead of China. Washington also wishes to reduce tensions between Pakistan and India, though notably not by addressing the root cause of conflict—the Kashmir issue.

It is important to note that these US policy objectives often stand in direct conflict with Pakistan’s own national interests, especially in relation to China and India. Pakistan’s relationship with China has largely been strategic and economic. Like any other global power, the US expects Pakistan to compromise its interests in favor of US strategic goals. This reflects the typical dynamics of a patron-client relationship, which has characterized U.S.-Pakistan relations for decades. However, times have changed, and the nature of this relationship must also evolve—something both Washington and Islamabad must come to realize.

Historically, Pakistan has played a central—and often instrumental—role in helping the United States achieve its foreign and security policy goals. From providing clandestine airbases to the US on its soil to counter the Soviet Union during the Cold War, to acting as a mediator for American contact with Communist China in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and launching the CIA-sponsored war in Afghanistan against the USSR in the 1980s, Pakistan has often gone above and beyond in its support of US interests. In the post-9/11 era, Pakistan again aligned itself with the US in the GWoT. In most of these cases, Pakistan’s power centers acted unilaterally—without public accountability—to serve American interests, often at the expense of Pakistan’s own sovereignty and long-term strategic goals. A notable example is Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev’s 1960 threat to reduce Peshawar to rubble after the downing of a US U-2 reconnaissance aircraft over Soviet airspace, which had taken off from the US airbase in Badaber, near Peshawar.

That said, it must also be acknowledged that Pakistan received considerable military and financial aid from Washington in return. However, the US still expects Islamabad to comply with its demands, even when doing so contradicts America’s repeated claims of supporting stability in Pakistan. For example, in the past decade, Pakistan took two highly significant strategic decisions: signing the multibillion-dollar China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) agreement and handing over operational control of its key seaport, Gwadar, to China. While the US has not openly opposed the CPEC, it has expressed strong displeasure over Chinese control of Gwadar, considering Beijing a strategic competitor in the region.

With regard to the CPEC, Washington fears that it will not only strengthen China’s position in South Asia but also enhance its global strategic influence—thus undermining US interests. It is important to recognize that the CPEC is a key component of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which aims to integrate the Eurasian landmass much like the ancient Silk Road, with China standing to gain immensely from the resulting economic connectivity. While the US rivalry with China continues to intensify, Washington must also consider that the CPEC could contribute to stabilizing Pakistan—an outcome that aligns with its stated foreign policy objectives.

While President Trump is expected to pursue all of these longstanding US policy goals in relation to Pakistan, the Iran factor is likely to assume even greater importance in the coming weeks and months. Pakistani policymakers and strategic thinkers will need to navigate this situation with extreme caution, as they face limited room for maneuver. Any miscalculated decisions could lead to severe and far-reaching consequences for Pakistan.