Opinion | Trump Praises Pakistan. What Should India Make Of It?

Trump calling Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif and Army Chief Asim Munir 'fantastic' makes for a great headline. It does not mean Pakistan is ascending the geopolitical ladder.

US President Donald Trump calling Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Army Chief Asim Munir “fantastic" makes for a great headline. It does not mean Pakistan is ascending the geopolitical ladder. Nor does it imply any renewed hyphenation with India.

Being useful is not the same as being influential. A doormat serves, but a stepping stone leads somewhere.

Donald Trump’s Craziest, Most Bizarre Tweets Yet

Trump, Americans Have Changed Their Attitude Towards China? Decoding The Sentiment

Trump Calls UK Immigration Policies 'Insane', Says Britain Is 'Being Invaded'

Donald Trump Announces 10-Day Ceasefire Between Israel, Lebanon: 'It Has Been My Honour'

Client, Not Strategic Partner

Pakistan might be getting praise, but its relationship with the United States remains fundamentally transactional and security-dependent. Since 2001, Pakistan has received over $30–35 billion in US aid, much of it tied to military cooperation and coalition support. Its leverage has typically come from geography—from Afghanistan to counter-terror access—rather than from economic or technological weight.

India sits in a different category. It is not a client state. It brings a $3.5–4 trillion economy against Pakistan’s roughly $340 billion, a 1.4 billion market, and a growing role in technology, supply chains and defence. Even when India disagrees with Washington, it negotiates from relative strength. Pakistan simply cannot.

The deeper constraint for Pakistan is structural. The military’s dominance of Pakistan’s economy and state is embedded, creating perpetual dysfunction, which has meant that Pakistan has turned to the US and US-dominated institutions such as the International Monetary Fund more than 20 times since 1958. The Army not only corners a large share of national resources but also has little interest in scaling back. Reform, therefore, remains structurally blocked.

Relevance Is Not Influence

Pakistan does have a knack for staying relevant. It can facilitate, host and open channels. In the lead-up to the 1971 US–China rapprochement, Pakistan helped connect Richard Nixon and Mao Zedong. During the 1980s Afghan war under Zia-ul-Haq, it became the frontline state for US strategy.

Today, it may offer itself as a facilitator in US–Iran channels. In none of these cases did Pakistan set the terms or shape the outcome. It was useful, sometimes indispensable, but not decisive.

Facilitators sit outside the room where decisions are made. That is the difference between access and authority.

The China Axis And Limits Of Pakistan’s ‘Usefulness’

In the long term, the United States is focused on countering China. This strategic concern underpins Indo-Pacific frameworks such as the Quad and AUKUS.

Even if Trump seeks tactical accommodation with China, the broader US strategic establishment continues to see India—and not Pakistan—as a balancing power.

Pakistan’s own position is constrained by its deep alignment with China. The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is valued at over $60 billion. Pakistan depends heavily on Chinese financing, energy projects and defence supply. This dependence narrows its strategic flexibility with Washington.

India, by contrast, practises multi-alignment. That strategic autonomy is what gives India weight.

The Gulf And Pakistan’s FOMO

Pakistan is responding to pressure in its own neighbourhood. India has deepened ties with the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, expanding beyond energy into investment and security. Trade with the UAE alone exceeds $80 billion. This has narrowed Pakistan’s traditional space. Gulf support is now more conditional, not automatic. In this context, Pakistan’s push to facilitate regional dialogue reflects a search for relevance it feels it is losing.

Facilitation may restore visibility. It does not restore leverage. In the end analysis, being useful is not the same as being influential. A doormat serves. A stepping stone leads somewhere.

© News18