Public opinion surrounding US-Pakistan relations is largely critical and skeptical, with many expressing concerns about the implications for India and regional stability. While some commenters show cautious optimism towards improved ties, the overall sentiment is characterized by distrust in US intentions and frustration over India's foreign policy direction. The complex interplay of historical grievances and current geopolitical dynamics fuels a strong desire for India to pursue a more independent approach.

United States

Pakistan

India

Ah yes… bet on Pakistan and its military junta that took out an extremely popular democratically elected leader less than 5 years ago. 

What could go wrong?

No_Abbreviations3943

Surely that will work out well for them, as it has

RA_V_EN_

America **is** betting on Pakistan, China tried as well. But Pakistan is so inept that despite significant support from 2 superpowers, its still growing at a pitiful 2.6%.

If these two countries tried and failed to get it to replace India in the region, then no force on Earth can.

Pakistan is simply not a country you make good bets on. They would be more likely to get a good bet on active war zones or rebel militias then Pakistan.

Old-Machine-8000

Bet on what? In simple words? What exact thing  Pakistan would provide?

vovap_vovap

Let me also remind people of United States...that it is pakistan that sheltered osama bin laden.

[deleted]

emphasis on SHOULD reality is different, India has been associating with Russia and China more strongly so I don't think US will back off

kaneki_uzumaki20

SS: Moeed Yusuf’s essay in *Foreign Affairs* cuts to the bone: the United States, disenchanted with India’s evasions and multipolar posturing, is tilting back toward Pakistan, whose generals, ports, and minerals now command Trump’s embrace. Pakistan is feted as a bridge between Washington and Beijing, a counterterror ally, and a beneficiary of reduced tariffs, while India, chastised for buying Russian oil and flirting with Xi Jinping, finds its own leverage with Washington ebbing fast.

The symbolism is brutal: India, once touted as the democratic bulwark against China, is now treated as untrustworthy, while Pakistan is recast as the prize.For Indians, this narrative breeds both envy and dread: the neighbour long dismissed as a failed state could yet steal the fruits of decades of U.S.-India partnership.

The irony for New Delhi could not be sharper: after 25 years of burnishing an American bond, it watches Pakistan step into the spotlight, threatening to turn India’s hard-won advantage into ashes.

My thoughts/non-thoughts: The deeper irony, of course, is political: the U.S. bet on India began under Congress with the civil nuclear deal and dreams of strategic partnership, but it is under Modi's watch that this inheritance is being squandered. Washington's loss of faith stems not only from multipolar posturing and Russian oil deals but also from the shrill chest-thumping that has left India more isolated than ever. Congress can now claim vindication, while the BJP must explain how a bond painstakingly built over decades has unraveled so dramatically in a very short period of time.

telephonecompany

If I had to guess, leverage to get India to stop buying Russian oil

IndependentThink4698

I’d suggest looking at reportage since February 2022 from The Intercept and then DropSite News about Pakistan. Though denied, it is clear that the U.S. at the very least indirectly told Pakistan’s military that overthrowing Imran Khan would lead to better ties. They were quite displeased that Khan went to Russia soon after the invasion of Ukraine and publicly declared neutrality.

IMF shenanigans were provided for Pakistan in exchange for munitions to be sent to Ukraine; munitions that the West does not have the capacity to produce.

Edit: adjusted the last sentence for grammar.

not_GBPirate

The first reason to come to mind is to pressure India with the "stick" over its Russia ties.

But the relations have also improved in their own right notably since the Israel-Iran War. It seems likely that Pakistan helped the US who then helped Israel with intelligence on Iran during the war.

There is also the tertiary motivation to step up engagement so Pakistan doesn't become a Laos-type vassal to China. Pakistan is greatly populated &amp; militarized, giving China access to the Indian Ocean so this is important for the US to compete/counter.

That last reason though only matters because the US feels India does not do enough to counter China particularly in the Pacific (India is against the militarization of the Quad).

Still_There3603

As a Chinese, I think the answer is simple: because Pakistan proved its worth in the air war with India and raised its international status.


If the U.S. continues to do nothing to Pakistan, Pakistan will completely fall back to China (in fact, Pakistan is already deeply cooperating with China politically, economically, and militarily), and the U.S. has nothing to squeeze Pakistan with, so adopting a soft policy is the only option.


The US realizes that India is not strong enough to clamp down on China - they are even at a disadvantage in a military confrontation with Pakistan, so how can they expect India to pressure China?

bjran8888

Daily reminder that the US has supported Pakistan for longer than Israel, still gives them tech and money despite them housing Daniel Pearl’s murder and (of all people) Osama Bin Laden, and even supported them with a nuclear threat WHILE Pakistan was issuing genocidal fatwas to rape and kill non-Muslims in now Bangladesh to the tune of numbers that are only dwarfed by the actual Holocaust in 1971.

IOW, if this is “rapprochement”, then I don’t know what “total and utter ally” is.  I’m only half kidding when I say that Pakistan could potentially nuke Delhi and subsequently issue a fatwa to rape all non Muslim women in Mumbai, and somehow the Americans (and Chinese) would find some way to look past it with hardly a peep from Europe.  Maybe a few “smh” online though.

resuwreckoning

American Deep state always been closer to Pakistan going back 1950s. 

Stupid corporate Dem love Bharat.

PossibleGazelle519

Improving relations with India without fully alienating Pakistan has always been how the USA has done things. 

An alienated Pakistan moves closer to China, while an alienated India moves closer to Russia. 

However, considering how weak Russia is now, perhaps this is shifting, and India moving closer to Russia isn't as much of a concern.

I'm quite interested to see how this all turns out.

mynameakevin

Rumors are rife that Pakistani F-16s might be eligible for V (Blk 70) upgrades.

Clearly, Pakistan is currently in the good books of USA because:

1-Pakistan showed extreme composure and calm and de-escalatory motives during recent Indo Pak clashes even though India attacked Pakistan with absolute no reasoning and got its ass whipped

2-Pakistan downed each of India's top fighter jets, Rafales, MKI, M2K, Mig 29 with no loss of own. Pakistan could have shot down way more. There is nothing India has that can out range Pl15 missiles.

3-USA wasn't expecting this, and US intelligence informed Trump that Indians are about to be sent to oblivion on May 9th, which is what forced USA to get into ceasefire talks

4-USA knows and world knows that Pakistan is a powerful country in south asian and central asian region. India is no where near what it portrays itself to be. India cannot win from Pakistan let alone counter China.

5-Americans have been pretty pissed with Indians, H1Bs, Tech ofshoring etc. So Americans themselves don't have soft corner for Indians anymore

If anything, this is all positive for Pakistan and Pakistan must take this opportunity. Recently, the US EXIMP also approved financing for Reko Diq.....this is rare and rarely US EXIMP banks approve loans for Pakistani projects.

Important-Parsley-38

trump don't like losers.. and when he said 5 jets got shot down, he knows exactly who shot down who.

on and india is too smart for itself, believe in nothing, not aligned with anyone, no full comittment whatsoever, but absolutely takes any tiny small advantage it can.. reselling russian oil, reselling chinese rare earth etc.. earning tiny money but piss off everyone at the same time... but yet still want the benefit from all sides... all that does is that you so smart, no one trusts you, just literally ask anyone about the reputation of indian businessman in the world, never EVER do payment plan with indian businessman, 100% full front cash payment or nothing else, if you dont, your indian buyer's deposit = full payment lol

It doesn’t appear like anything is being seriously thought through in the Whitehouse. It is policy determined by Trump’s current state of mind.

Objectalone

This article is way too simplistic and paints US of being something of a big-brother or a noble benefactor which it isn't.

If US wanted India to engage with it against China, then why does it's President continuously deride India and make snide remarks both in Press conferences and on Social media.

And this isn't the President alone but several other high ranking officials too. And then there's the 50% tariffs against India alone while both Pakistan and China are nowhere close to that.

Then for whatever reason, a sitting US President engages in a meet with the Army Chief and also allows speak of nuclear threat from US soil.

The author states that US wishes to engage both India and Pakistan but actual actions differ far from that.

And the mineral reason seems way to naive, like what does the admin gain by pissing off India for Copper and Gold. And yea, Trump coins too.

US has a far more chance of exceptional monetary returns from investing in India than in Pakistan as history as shown. 

What is true though is that India won't serve as a subservient US vassal to allow it's troops to gain a foothold in the region like Pakistan and this was already known but this doesn't warrant trying to explicitly humiliate India.

ryizer

What critical minerals? 

China has been mining it for decades and has yet to find anything of note. 

Pakistan is not a resource-rich country as the author tries to paint it out to be. If it had been, then China would've found that lottery already. It probably makes more money giving Pakistan loans and then getting the IMF to pay for the loans via bail-out.

What utility does Pakistan provide to the US,
beyond not selling their nukes to terror groups?

Pakistan hosted Al-qaeda as well as Taliban, even if not officially, without any repercussions.

AgitatedHoneydew2645

The author’s take feels kinda naive and gives Pakistan way too much credit for nothing. Trump suddenly turned critical of India and dragged the Russian oil thing out of nowhere. Honestly, Pakistan’s got nothing to do with it.

curiousstrider

I don't understand, this author said india won't able to increase its maritime power but isn't india commissioning warships every year and have steadily increased its naval projects?

Mahameghabahana

Anyone capable of thinking is being pushed out by the administration..

PubliusDeLaMancha

We are going to make India an adversary because of Pakistani copper and gold?


Sounds about the only strategy this administration knows, get deals for minerals

slo1111

Pakistan is an artificial state/vassal state created by colonizers before exiting from India. It's a failed country &amp; mercenary state ready to do anything to serve their masters or highest bidders 

You throw some money &amp; these clowns will obey your orders. So China, USA &amp; Turkey keep using them for some geopolitical reasons which majorly include keeping India in check, spying on Iran &amp; Afghanistan.

So US wants to push India towards China and court Pakistan to counter China?

Dios94

India simply won't bend on the matter of any discussions between India and Pakistan being anything but bilateral. They won't go to the table with the US, and especially this current US regime, as the intermediary. There is no trust amongst the Indian government in the current US regime being an impartial arbiter.

Rozaks

picked a shitty ally in Pakistan over India. Smart... 

guess there was a reason for the increased india hate online since the skirmish with Pakistan (uptick compared to usual)

VonDukez

US is free to make whatever decisions it wants. A lot of times, it makes braindead decisions based on short term thinking. This might be as stupid of a decision as Iraq War in 2003. It'll take decades to recover from the mess.

theWireFan1983

The article makes liberal interpretation of events, drawing conclusions that can not be independently supported.


&gt;much of the change in strategy is informed by a reassessment of the United States’ global geostrategy and the ways in which the competition with China is being approached


&gt;Trump administration seems to have concluded that Pakistan offers things that are of importance to the United States


&gt;Without normalization, India will remain consumed by its Himalayan front, unable to build the maritime capabilities that the U.S. envisions as central to countering Chinese naval expansion.


These sweeping statements are backed by only more sweeping statements.

Magicalsandwichpress

Submission Statement: The author writes that the recent recalibration in U.S. strategy towards India on the part of the Trump administration is part of a larger shift beyond simply trade policy. The author argues that the recent conflagration between the two nations has created a situation that will lead to India being tied down on its Himalayan border for the foreseeable future and unable to build out a naval presence in the Indian Ocean significant enough to become a net security provider in the region, largely due to India being tied down on two fronts as opposed to simply one. 

The author also writes that Washington has reassessed its relationship with Pakistan and found that the nation continues to provide immense utility to the United States such that it cannot simply abandon Pakistan for India. As such, tensions between the two nations are against the U.S.’ interests and will lead to further divergence with India in the future.

ManOrangutan

Briefly; it's a combination of periodic geopolitical necessities(involving China during the Cold War, then Afghanistan in 2001, and now Iran) and having someone at the boundary of Central Asia and the Middle East who can conveniently do whatever they can for you without any ethics, diplomacy, politics or bureaucracy getting in the way.

As the author(who's Pakistani) says, America's relationship with Pakistan has only deteriorated during the periods when it was under legitimate civilian governments. Its dictators have been far easier to deal with.

1-randomonium

Because dictators are easier to deal with than elected politicians. You want something from a country with a dictator? Just send a batch of guns and support their crackdowns on dissent and you have a loyal puppet.

HungryHungryHippoes9

These are the same people who are directly responsible for the lives of scores of American soldiers in Afghanistan (due to deliberately faulty intel by ISI who actively collaborates with terror groups).

ShanayStark7

There were reports of this "strongman" hiding in a bunker and was nowhere to be seen during the conflict.

India’s “non-aligned policy” has seen many view it as a unreliable partner in the west. Case in point would be its tip toeing of line of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. On the other hand Pakistan has deeply worked with the west at various points in its history. For example the U.S. used Pakistani air bases to launch U2 spy planes to spy on the USSR, it was largely due to Pakistani facilitation that U.S.-Chinese rapprochement took place which completely changed the landscape of the Cold War, there is also obviously the massively important Pakistani role in helping arm the mujahideen against the Soviets in the 80s, and finally Pakistan was very effective in the early years of the war on terror is capturing Al qaeda operatives who had fled across the border from Afghanistan. So there’s a deep history of cooperation there with Pakistan that just isn’t there at all with India and Pakistan has been much more willing to lend the west a hand when asked unlike India. There’s also the fact that the Pakistani military which has essentially run the country since 1958 is massively pro American, so there has always been a pro American force in the Pakistani leadership.

India is not interested in the kind of "alliance" American foreign policy people expect

Significant-Luck9987

Confident_Access6498

It's always been about maintaining a balance of power in the region afaik. If India was the inherently weaker nation, I think it would have been the other way around.

vote4boat

Why commit to one side or the other if they don't have to? Especially given that India isn't going to commit either.

GottmanRuleEggs

I’m pretty sure Pakistan has been given up on.

It’s geopolitically relatively recent, since we needed them for Afghanistan, but they’re pretty much buying all their equipment from China for the last several years and relations are kinda crumbling across the board.

Of course, that could swing back the other way; wouldn’t be the first zigzag in the US-Pakistan relationship.

PG908

The US doesn't want a strong India either. Supporting Pakistan serves its own interests and helps keep India in check.

veerKg_CSS_Geologist

Pakistan is basically the Turkey of South Asia ,  strategically annoying but too useful to ignore. Honestly, it is better than India from a great power perspective… because it’s weaker,  easier to push around, more dependent, and always ready to play ball (for a price). 

I wouldn’t be surprised if some genius finally gives up on it one day, because just feel  like it   LMAO.

medicsansgarantee

Given India's and Russia's shared history and cooperation, it's unlikely America could fully draw India into its camp. America was ready to bomb India and was murdering Indian nuclear scientists before the USSR stepped up to protect them in 1971.

MonsterkillWow

&gt;India be more interested in aligning

That is not realistic, India has a historic policy of "non-aligment". They were the most important member of the non-aligned countries block during the cold war. They are not showing any signs what so ever of wanting to change their historic position.

MarzipanTop4944

India is not willing to be another "Ukraine" for the U.S. to throw its people into a meat grinder war against China.

India ideally wants a mutually beneficial relationship.

Also, if the US gives up on Pakistan, then China's Belt and Road Project will happen a lot faster. 

Right now within Pakistan the ruling elites are divided between Pro China and Pro US factions. 

Pro US factions do everything they can to delay BRI projects in Pakistan whereas Pro China factions attempt to accelerate them.

Losing Pakistan would also lose US drone and surveillance bases near the Iranian border as well. It would also give Iran a direct line to China making oil transfers to China a lot easier.

StepAsideJunior

The OP is forgetting that Pakistan shares a 300 mile border with Iran, which the US has been opposed to since 1979. That proximity alone maintains American interests in Pakistan.

Given Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and its role in nuclear proliferation (how North Korea got the bomb), it comes down to LBJ’s maxim that it is better to have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.

WhoNotU

I see a few reasons:

* There is a lot of work required to turn India into a complete enemy of China and a reliable ally of the USA. India benefits from its ambiguous position with Russia, China, and the USA. This allows it a wide range of diplomatic and economic moves that it would lose by aligning fully with one side. I think US diplomacy understands that and doesn't believe it's worth the trouble to try turning India into a US-aligned country.
* Pakistan has an unreliable but essential intelligence service for countering Islamist terrorism. Cutting ties with them would make the fight against global Islamist groups operating in Pakistan even more difficult than it already is.
* Pakistan joining an Iranian axis would be a significant threat to US interests in the region.
* Unlike Russia, China is not a threat to most of the Asian continent (aside from a few places like Taiwan or maybe South Korea). So there is no need to create an anti-China alliance like NATO in Europe. China is more often seen as a competitor than a threat to US interests. However, with Trump and the ongoing militarization of China, that could change in the future.
* I don't think USA is really concerned about India becoming too powerful, and there is no scenario where Pakistan get submitted by India (that would just turn the entire region in a warzone for decades).

Separate-Courage9235

U.S.-Pakistani relations have certainly cooled but there’s clearly some ties left after forging a nearly six decade long alliance 

It also helps to have your foot in the door in the event of a collapse of the Pakistani government. Hundreds of nuclear warheads in one of the most mountainous regions in the world is something I’d want contacts in a military apparatus for

elykl12

Then Pakistan falls directly into the hands of China. Hell the whole reason IK was removed was due to US pressure over Pakistan/IK trying to develop relations with Russia.

FederalSandwich1854

It’s simple a broken collapsing Islamic state with nukes is way scarier to the world order then a crazy corrupt half functioning atomic Islamic military autocracy

ExampleNo2489

A foreign analyst once said there are three governments inside Pakistan . The civilian government which is usually very friendly with the United States. The military regime which is more nationalist anti India but a reliable partner for the U.S. The only issue with the military establishment with Pakistan is they do destroy democratic institutions and the stability of the country. Military coups inside a nuclear state is not the best combination in the world.

Lastly the ISI intelligence community which has often helped the Taliban and Al-Qaeda . The ISI is most guilty of betraying the U.S the most to the point where the ISI was often tipping off the Afghan Taliban whenever America shared info about potential airstrikes in Afghanistan.

We should be friendly with the civilian government and cautiously friendly with the military but extremely hostile to the ISI.

I also recommend reading , Directorate S by Steve Coll.

combrade

In case China and India would do business that would benefit both sides

Dragon2906

China is already a handful for the US to deal with. Imagine there's another China. Do you think the Indians would bow down to the US when they get strong and powerful themselves?

No-Satisfaction-275

Cause US has realized India is not only untrustworthy but also militarily weak and cannot compete with China at any level so the need to pick sides has gone down relatively fast

moongroup

The US would benefit more from war in this region than anywhere else on earth. A war involving India, Pakistan, and China would consume military resources at such a high rate that all three would be weakened terribly.

ExcellentWinner7542

Isn't Pakistan more aligned with China than USA? Didn't they give the military equipments of USA to China for reverse engineering?

Confident-Ask-2043

IvanThePohBear

The US continues to prop them up because of the fear of a broke country selling their wmds or otherwise doing something heinous with them.

It's the real concern with the UK as well, beyond just seeing a long time and stalwart ally being destroyed from within by choice.

India doesn't really factor in as much as they would like to think, in almost all matters.

Goaterush

uncannyfjord

Because the USA wants to use India to reach its goals and for manufacturing, but at the same time not let India grow too big so that it can challenge usd and military authority 

If Pakistan collapses, who gets the nuclear weapons?

nash3101

pakistanis are employed to do this whole day ... running narratives in the comment sections

The West  especially the U.S.  doesn’t stop India from acting against Pakistan out of concern for Pakistan. They do it because they *need* India stable. If India gets dragged into a full-scale war with a nuclear-armed Pakistan, it could suffer major damage — economically, militarily, and politically. That weakens India and removes a key counterweight to China in the region.

It’s not about fairness; it’s about balance of power. The West wants India strong *enough* to check China, but not so aggressive that it destabilizes South Asia. If India gets wrecked, China gets a free hand. So, the West pressures India into restraint not because they’re “against” India, but because they’re playing long-term chess.

Plastic-Glove-6224

Containing China has been ineffective for decades. It is recommended to do more of your own things. The foundation of a country lies in its internal affairs. Indians may debate less and do more practical things, even if it is just picking up garbage, which is also a contribution.

SmoothBaseball677

India like China, is a potential for a superpower. The US will not allow India to rise because India interests will always be for india.

Just like siding with some Indo Pacific countries is important to contain china, siding with Pakistan is important to contain India

Ancher123

India isn’t going to bow down to the USA so not an ally, but not a foe. As it should be. Pakistan is a weak state that can be manipulated.

Smart_Spinach_1538

Have you considered that India is the country that might need countering?

Would Saudi Arabia remain friendly to the West if it occupied Iraq and Iran?

machinationstudio

It was neutral in the last dispute btw India and Pakistan and has largely allied with India against China.

If you want to ask why the US dosen’t cut off Pakistan completely, it’s likely due to a mixture of liking Modi only slightly more and foreign policy inertia.

spinosaurs70

India’s untrustworthy. They’re basically the kid who will start shit and then run to their bigger friend for protection. While they need the protection, they will suck up to whomever provides it but won’t hesitate to stab them in the back.

RoutineTry1943

there are two gov in USA ONE IS PENTAGON ( PRESIDENT ) AND ONE IS CIA 

CIA USE PAKISTAN FOR RUSSIA ,INDIA, AND CHINA SO THAT THEY CAN  BE AGGRESSIVE ON ANY OF THEM ANYTIME .

CIA HAS ITS NUCLEAR TESTINGS IN PAKISTAN TOO AND AS WE KNOW THE WHOLE NUR KHAN BASE IS OWNED BY CIA  NOT A SINGLE PAKISTANI IS ALLOWED THERE WITHOUT PERMISSION.

AND CONTAINING CHINA IS NOT EASY BECAUSE CHINA IS INTERVINED IN GLOBAL TRADES AND GLOBALISATION.

Abject-Astronomer761

India is untrustworthy and does not stick to its word. Pakistan does

puppiesandrainbows1

Oddly enough, both India and Pakistan, have a common adversary in the PRC. 

It's militantly atheist and continually expanding it's territory.

It doesn't matter what you believe. Even if it's borders.

Right-Influence617

Recent developments indicate a shift in U.S.-Pakistan relations amid strengthened diplomatic ties and strategic agreements.

US-Pakistan Geopolitical Relations

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want