America and Pakistan’s Renewed Proximity: Mystery ?

Poonam Sharma
The current warming of relations between Pakistan and the United States has brought long-standing controversies in diplomatic circles to the fore, causing alarm as well as interest. The world has, over several decades, observed how this odd couple has influenced conflict, created new geopolitics fault lines, and stoked insecurities in South Asia and beyond. The present stage of re-engagement appears to have echoes from the past—where America’s strategic interests and Pakistan’s opportunistic diplomacy tend to meet in ways that destabilize instead of stabilizing international order.

A Turbulent Relationship

The U.S.-Pakistan relationship has seldom been simple. Since the Cold War period, Pakistan has frequently been regarded as a useful ally instead of a reliable partner. During the Soviet-Afghan conflict of the 1980s, Washington channeled billions of aid and arms through Pakistan to the Mujahideen, an action that had the direct effect of seeding radical militancy. When later the Taliban branched out of this crucible, the same network infrastructure America had helped create became a terrorism incubator. The 9/11 attacks highlighted this unintended blowback, and Washington’s following military intervention in Afghanistan further entrenched Pakistan’s double role: a self-proclaimed ally in the “war on terror” but at the same time a refuge for radical groups.

Cycles of Engagement and Betrayal

Every U.S. administration has grappled with Pakistan’s duplicity. Meanwhile, Pakistan has offered vital logistical and intelligence assistance on the one side, and provided cover for outfits such as the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba on the other. The Abbottabad discovery in 2011 of Osama bin Laden underscored the extent of duplicity, straining relations but never quite breaking them. Instead, the same cycle has run: punishments and aid cutoffs followed by bouts of renewed engagement whenever Washington required Islamabad’s assistance, either in counterterrorism or in regional stability.

Now, this cycle is repeating itself again. In the face of rising tensions with China and Russia, the U.S. is seemingly again prepared to look the other way from Pakistan’s dubious record for strategic gains within the region.

The Strategic Motivations

Pakistan is attractive to America in a number of ways. First, its geographical location is irreplaceable: wedged between India, China, Afghanistan, and Iran, Pakistan stands strategically located at the intersection of South and Central Asia. Second, Pakistan has influence over Taliban groups, allowing it to hold sway in the unstable post-U.S. withdrawal environment of Afghanistan. Third, Washington has an interest in derailing Pakistan from China’s deepening embrace, particularly as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of Beijing expands via the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

U.S. interaction is equally precious for Pakistan. The economy of Pakistan is strained, with debt, inflation, and decreasing foreign reserves. Exposure to U.S. assistance, investment, and diplomatic backing at forums like the IMF and World Bank is a lifeline. Also, Pakistan’s military establishment perceives U.S. relations as critical to upholding its global influence and counterbalancing India’s expanding role.

Risks of Rekindling an Old Fire

The new closeness, though, is ominous. History has repeatedly shown that the U.S.-Pakistan equation brings more instability than stability, critics contend. Washington’s transactional strategy often ignores Pakistan’s internal sponsorship of radical movements, while Islamabad uses American assistance to bolster its military instead of economic reform or democratic governance.

India itself looks askance at this evolution. Previous U.S. aid and military assistance to Pakistan have encouraged its aggressive stance toward New Delhi. Greater proximity would reawaken tensions across the Line of Control in Kashmir, unsettle South Asia’s precarious peace, and complicate America’s own relations with India—now a pillar of its Indo-Pacific policy.

Global Repercussions

Outside of South Asia, this alliance also has broader implications. By re-engaging with Pakistan, the U.S. risks sending an inconsistent message about its international counterterrorism commitments. It could encourage other nations accused of sheltering terrorist groups, undermining global norms against terrorism. China is not going to sit on the sidelines either. A U.S.-Pakistan rapprochement could pressure Beijing to double down on its economic and military alliances with Islamabad, turning Pakistan into a pawn in another great power game.

At the same time, Russia, meanwhile continuing to struggle with Western sanctions and wars, can look to court Pakistan as a counterweight, adding to the geopolitical complexity. So what starts out as Washington’s tactical alliance with Islamabad has the potential to morph into a new multipolar game of competition, with Pakistan once again acting as a swing state in international politics.

The Question of Trust

At the crux of this problem is a fundamental question: can Pakistan be trusted? The past provides reason for caution. From nuclear proliferation scandals to providing sanctuary to global terrorists, Pakistan’s record is fraught with inconsistencies. America, in its drive for short-term tactical gains, threatens to repeat the errors of the past—arming and funding a partner that ends up undermining its own long-term security interests.

Conclusion: Mischief or Strategic Necessity?

The revived U.S.-Pakistan relationship seems more a marriage of convenience than an actual partnership. For Pakistan, it is an attempt at survival; for the U.S., a calculation driven by necessity. But the world has seen where this alliance leads: terrorism, proxy wars, and regions destabilized. If Washington does not draw clear red lines and insist on real accountability from Islamabad, history could repeat itself.

The stakes are high. America has a choice to make about whether its new affection for Pakistan will be a tool of strategic stability—or if it will reopen the Pandora’s box of global insecurity. Either way, the world waits with bated breath, suspicious of a relationship that has so many times blurred the distinction between mischief and power.