Pakistan has reportedly offered access to select airfields for use by the U.S. military in operations related to Iran and Afghanistan. While no formal announcement has been made, circumstantial evidence like renewed military aid talks, satellite-tracked ISR flights, and a recent White House luncheon between Army Chief General Asim Munir and U.S. President Donald Trump indicates a deepening operational partnership.
Further reinforcing this tilt, Pakistan’s Senate has passed a resolution nominating Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, citing his role in easing tensions between India and Pakistan. In return, the U.S. is reportedly offering F-16 maintenance, air defence upgrades, and discussions on next-generation platforms. This emerging alignment revives a familiar pattern, tactical cooperation wrapped in strategic deniability.
A Familiar Pattern Returns
For India, there is a familiar outcome expected of this renewed cooperation between the epicentre of terrorism and the US. A surge in pressure on India through diplomacy, grey-zone warfare, and border provocation. This is not speculation. It is documented history.
The decision of cooperation has also triggered disquiet within Pakistan. The move contradicts former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s popular retort of "Absolutely Not" position on allowing U.S. military bases on Pakistani soil. Religious fundamentalists and hardline nationalist groups may also resent this alignment with the U.S. as a betrayal of sovereignty and Islamic values.
How Pakistan Uses Foreign Support Against India
Pakistan has in the past channelled the military and economic assistance from the US to fund anti-India operations. In the 1965 war, American tanks were used. During the Kargil conflict, U.S.-supplied logistics supported Pakistan's forward deployments. In the post-9/11 years, American aid was diverted to fund proxy groups in Kashmir. Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed, in his seminal work 'Pakistan: The Garrison State', observes that "Pakistan uses foreign assistance not to stabilise its society, but to match India’s rise through indirect means. These include infiltration, information warfare, narcotics-funded militancy, and cross-border ceasefire violations". Pakistan may now feel emboldened to raise violence and seek diplomatic impunity of being a "counterterrorism partner of the US."
Pakistan has long mastered the art of sailing with a foot each on two boats, usually heading in opposite directions. It has maintained ties with rival powers, navigating between Washington, Beijing, Tehran, and Riyadh with tactical agility. During the war on terror, it received billions in U.S. aid while covertly supporting the Taliban and sheltering Osama bin Laden. Even after this duplicity was exposed, U.S. engagement continued. It is driven by geography and tactical needs.
As C. Christine Fair observes in Fighting to the End, "Pakistan routinely secures resources from its allies—most notably the United States—and then uses those very resources to undermine the interests of those allies." The pattern is longstanding. In the Cold War, Pakistan helped broker U.S.–China ties while staying close to both. It has even been accused of passing U.S. technology to China for reverse engineering.
Despite Pakistan's long history of sheltering terrorism and exporting radicalisation, the US continues to engage it. The reason is not shared values. It is a tactical utility. Pakistan offers access to bases and provides intelligence. Now, as Pakistan tilts again toward Washington, China may be reminded that Islamabad’s loyalty is transactional and remains only for as long as it is useful.
Betrayal of China
For more than a decade, Pakistan was China’s closest partner. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is central to the Belt and Road Initiative. Islamabad also backed Beijing diplomatically in BRICS, SCO, and the UN. Yet this latest pivot toward the U.S. raises alarm in Beijing.
China’s Ministry of State Security reportedly flagged concerns over U.S. access near Chinese-built facilities in Gwadar and Skardu. The move signals that Islamabad cannot be counted on when strategic choices get complicated. Ambassador Mahesh Sachdev, in an article, noted that Pakistan tries to "appear indispensable to all sides," but such a balancing act carries limits. Beijing’s trust has been shaken on this occasion.
Publicly, China may stay quiet. But behind the scenes, it may delay funding for CPEC projects, tighten loan conditions, and restrict future military cooperation. It may also invest more strategically in Iran and Afghanistan to compensate for Pakistan's unreliability. This pattern of double-dealing has served Pakistan tactically so far, but at the cost of credibility.
Recommendations for India
India must prepare for the consequences of Pakistan’s renewed proximity to Washington and potential Chinese recalibration. The following strategic actions are essential:
Enhance Strategic Situational Awareness: Invest in real-time multi-domain surveillance systems, which in itself is a deterrent.
Self-Reliance in Critical Technologies: Accelerate domestic capabilities in semiconductors, AI, biotech, and quantum computing. These define future power structures.
Indigenise Weapon Platforms: Develop drones, electronic warfare systems, radars, and missile technologies at home to ensure strategic autonomy.
Engage World with Evidence: Share proof of Pakistan’s historical misuse of U.S. military aid directly with U.S. policymakers, Western and World's leading Think Tanks and defence circles. The assertions should not be rhetorical but based on credible evidence.
Deepen Multi-Alignment: Strengthen ties with France, Japan, UAE, and ASEAN to ensure India's options remain wide and diversified.
Project Strategic Autonomy: India can extend diplomatic overtures toward China on selective issues like regional stability or economic cooperation. This sends a dual message to China, that strategic engagement with India offers greater long-term value than dependence on Pakistan and to the U.S., that India's role in shaping regional outcomes is far more significant. Supporting narratives through Indian and Western think tanks can further highlight India's credibility, scale, and reliability, reinforcing its position as a sovereign power, not a junior partner.
Expand Narrative Capabilities: Integrate military and civilian units to counter disinformation and digital sabotage in real time.
Adopt Strategic Realism: Don’t hesitate to act in self-interest. India must not wait for approval to protect its sovereignty.
Leverage the Indian Diaspora: Mobilise the diaspora in the U.S. and Europe to influence opinion, expose duplicity, and promote India's strategic case.
Conclusion
Pakistan’s behaviour follows a well-known pattern. It seeks external support to offset its internal weaknesses, and then turns that support toward undermining India. What changes are its patrons, the strategy remains unchanged.
India must avoid both complacency and moral anxiety. The U.S. can be a partner, but not a guarantor. China is an adversary, but not unmovable. The key is to remain alert, capable, and self-directed.
By shifting back toward the U.S., Pakistan risks burning bridges with China. Beijing may not say it openly, but it will see this as a betrayal. Pakistan may soon find that playing both sides comes at a cost. For India, the lesson is simple: prepare, strategically, diplomatically, and technologically.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of ETV Bharat)
