US-Pakistan thaw: The two-hour White House luncheon between President Donald Trump and Pakistan’s all-powerful army chief Asim Munir set social media alight and diplomatic antennae buzzing. The unusual one-on-one — initially billed for a single hour — ended with Trump gushing that he loved Pakistan and was honoured to meet the general. Seasoned observers of South Asia wondered if Washington was preparing to crown Islamabad the new darling of American strategy. The short answer: no. Trump’s embrace is tactical, born of immediate anxieties over the Israel-Iran war and the need for fresh intelligence channels into Tehran’s labyrinth.
For the first time in a decade, the Pentagon faces the prospect of active combat with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. Pakistan, which shares a 900-kilometre border with Iran and hosts a sizeable Shia minority, offers the United States three valuable assets: ground-truth intelligence, cross-border logistics, and a plausible intermediary should back-channel talks become inevitable. It is no coincidence that Munir—accompanied by the head of the ISI—pitched cooperation on mines, minerals and AI, but devoted most of his Oval Office time to Iran, according to aides.
READ I India’s aviation industry boom faces a grim safety test
US-Pakistan thaw not a strategic pivot
From Washington’s angle the calculation is brutally simple: appease Islamabad for a few critical weeks, gain access to the world’s most porous frontier with Iran, and perhaps extract a modicum of leverage over Beijing’s favourite junior partner. Nothing in that formula resembles a long-term alliance; everything screams transaction.
Those who see a permanent thaw forget the long ledger of broken promises. Trump himself froze military aid to Pakistan in 2018, branding it a haven for terrorists. His revival of cordiality today is reminiscent of George W. Bush’s brief courtship during the “war on terror” and Barack Obama’s subsequent disillusionment. The Stimson Center reminds us that even after funnelling more than $30 billion in assistance since 2001, Washington still accuses Islamabad of duplicity.
Munir’s jaunt and the US-Pakistan thaw, therefore, should be read less as a strategic reset and more as a high-stakes audition: provide actionable insight on Iran now, collect modest returns later — perhaps IMF indulgence or a temporary tariff reprieve.
India’s complacency trap
If the US-Pakistan tango is ephemeral, why should New Delhi worry? Because optics matter, and New Delhi has invested heavily — some would say excessively — in the illusion of personal chemistry with Donald Trump. When Prime Minister Modi phoned the US president this week, Trump reiterated his claim that he single-handedly stopped the war between India and Pakistan in May. New Delhi’s factual rebuttal was buried under the headline of Trump’s lunch with Munir.
The risk is perceptual. India’s carefully cultivated image as a responsible, rules-based power is already under strain — Kashmir’s clampdown, sporadic communal unrest, and the Nijjar assassination accusations in Canada refuse to fade. Now, a narrative could crystallise in Western capitals: Pakistan is suddenly helpful while India is obstinate. If that meme sticks, it will cost us in trade negotiations, technology transfers and, crucially, leverage in any future crisis.
From self-congratulation to serious outreach
Global headlines are written in Washington, London and increasingly Ottawa, not at “H-style” rallies in Houston. Mark Carney’s election as Canadian prime minister has offered New Delhi an unexpected opportunity to reset ties frayed by the Khalistan saga. Modi’s prompt in-person meeting—and the decision by both sides to restore high commissioners—shows what disciplined, discreet diplomacy can achieve.
A similar approach is needed in Washington. Instead of celebrating “Howdy, Modi” spectacles, India must cultivate the less glamorous but more enduring centres of influence: Congressional committees, state governors eyeing semiconductor investments, and think-tank analysts who shape op-eds read by Capitol Hill staffers. When Pakistan brings its army chief, India should respond with CEOs of digital-payments giants and directors of our AI research hubs — evidence that partnership with India is a bet on the future, not a firefighting expedient.
Clean up, leverage the democracy card
India’s domestic record cannot be an afterthought. The Israel-Iran war has resurrected talk in Western press about civilian harm, collective punishment, and the moral costs of great-power adventurism. In that climate, detention of journalists or internet shutdowns in Kashmir will be cited as proof that New Delhi is drifting from its liberal moorings. No amount of high-powered lobbying can compensate for negative Human Rights Watch bulletins flashing across a senator’s briefing note. The lesson is plain: responsible powers police themselves first.
India must master 21st-century multi-alignment without looking opportunistic. Our relationship with Russia withstands Western scrutiny because India frames it around legacy defence needs and a pathway to manage China. Our relationship with the US likewise must be placed on a value-plus-interest axis: democracy, yes, but also co-production of jet engines and trusted-supplier status for rare-earth minerals. If India reduces ties to photo-ops, they will be vulnerable to the next tactical pivot — whether in Islamabad, Riyadh or Hanoi.
Messaging matters
Finally, narrative discipline is essential. New Delhi should articulate a succinct elevator pitch: India is a predictable partner in an unpredictable neighbourhood. That means temperate language during cross-border crises, rapid humanitarian assistance to neighbours hit by climate disasters, and consistent votes in multilateral forums condemning terrorism and hostage-taking. When Pakistan is lauded for facilitating an Iran ceasefire, India must showcase its own credentials — ships evacuating stranded students from conflict zones, generic medicines supplied at cost to war-torn hospitals, and solar grids donated to the Pacific Islands. Good deeds advertised professionally create diplomatic credit that no luncheon can erase.
The cold realism of international politics is that friendships are rarely permanent, but reputations are. Trump’s dalliance with Islamabad is a tactical romance dictated by missile trajectories over the Persian Gulf. It will ebb once the Iran crisis subsides or Pakistan’s asks grow expensive. India’s challenge is not to panic but to refine its own game: shed the smugness, tidy up the civil-liberties desk, and speak with 21st-century polish to 21st-century audiences.
History offers comfort. From Ayub Khan to Pervez Musharraf, US-Pakistan courtships have flared and faded with the exigencies of war. India, meanwhile, has moved from PL-480 food aid to launching cooperative lunar missions with NASA. India did that by marrying strategic patience with purposeful outreach. It is time to dust off that playbook.
Donald Trump may love Pakistan today; tomorrow he will ask what Islamabad has done for him lately. New Delhi’s task is harder: New Delhi must persuade a sceptical world that it does not need episodic affection because it offers enduring value. That, not personal camaraderie, is the currency of responsible power.