US CENTCOM Chief General Michael Kurilla’s recent remarks calling Pakistan a “phenomenal partner” in counter terrorism have raised eyebrows—not only in India, but among global observers who have long tracked the cyclical nature of U.S.-Pakistan relations. While such compliments may seem diplomatic boilerplate, they mask a deeper strategic realignment underway in West Asia.
Reports of the U.S. re-engaging Pakistan for military basing options—especially as Washington manoeuvres in anticipation of escalation involving Israel and Iran—are both familiar and unsettling. The geopolitical playbook is being dusted off, but the stakes are higher now, and for India, the risks are significant.
Old Patterns Resurface: The Deep State’s Islamism Problem
Since the 1980s, U.S. foreign policy has walked a dangerous tightrope: using Islamist forces as instruments of proxy warfare while simultaneously attempting to contain them. Nowhere was this contradiction more visible than in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. Operation Cyclone, which funneled billions into mujahideen groups via Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), didn’t just bleed the Soviet Union—it built the ideological infrastructure for modern jihadism, which spilled over to Kashmir in India in post-1989.
The Taliban, al-Qaeda, and a multitude of splinter groups emerged not in a vacuum, but from this convergence of U.S. strategic imperatives and Pakistani military ambitions. And yet, even after 9/11 exposed the costs of this Faustian bargain—over 2,400 American military deaths, $2.3 trillion spent, and the loss of Afghanistan to the very forces the U.S. once funded—the playbook remains surprisingly unchanged.
Why Pakistan Again? Strategic Geography and Iranian Escalation
At the centre of renewed U.S.-Pakistan cooperation lies Iran. With tensions between Tel Aviv and Tehran reaching dangerous highs, especially following suspected Israeli involvement in assassinations of Iranian scientists and nuclear facility sabotage, Washington is recalibrating its military footprint in the region.
Pakistan, with its Nur Khan Airbase and historical precedent of hosting U.S. military assets, once again appears useful.
For CENTCOM and the Pentagon, access to Pakistani territory offers a geographically proximate and logistically feasible route to conduct surveillance or kinetic action in Iran without relying solely on Gulf allies like the UAE or Bahrain, where political backlash is more visible. But this is no mere tactical pivot—it signals that the U.S. remains willing to overlook Pakistan’s complicity in terror sponsorship for the sake of “utility.”
Terrorism, Sanctions—and Selective Amnesia
The evidence of Pakistan’s longstanding relationship with Islamist groups—Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, the Haqqani Network—is not speculative. It is documented in Congressional hearings, Pentagon reports, and international court proceedings. And it has cost not just Indian lives, but American ones too—from CIA agents in Khost to the 2008 Mumbai attacks, in which U.S. citizens were killed to the latest Pahalgam tourist massacre in May.
Yet, despite periodic sanctions—like the recent December 2024 move targeting entities involved in Pakistan’s missile program—U.S. policymakers continue to view Pakistan through the lens of short-term strategic gains, not long-term ideological threats. This dichotomy reflects the persistence of the U.S. “Deep State” mindset that sees Islamism not as an inherent danger, but as a tool to be managed, outsourced, and weaponised when convenient.
India’s Strategic Dilemma: Hypenation by Proxy
For India, this triangulation spells renewed complications. New Delhi’s foreign policy since 2014 has focused on asserting geopolitical autonomy: rejecting Cold War binaries, maintaining strategic ambiguity on Russia-Ukraine, and building partnerships with the West without surrendering sovereignty. India’s moon landing, its leadership of the G20, and surpassing Japan in GDP rankings reflect a nation charting its own course.
And yet, Washington’s persistent hyphenation—treating India and Pakistan as two sides of the same regional coin—undermines this autonomy. How can India be a peer partner when its adversary, with a record of cross-border terrorism and democratic subversion, is simultaneously legitimised and militarily engaged by the same superpower?
This is not about hurt pride. It is about geopolitical coherence. A secular, liberal, nuclear-armed democracy like India cannot be treated as morally or strategically equivalent to a theocratic security state like Pakistan without damaging the very idea of an Indo-Pacific order rooted in democratic values.
Technological Autonomy and Strategic Trust Deficits
Moreover, U.S. engagement with Pakistan introduces a trust deficit in critical technology transfers. India’s drive toward technological sovereignty—from semiconductor self-reliance to indigenous defence production—requires dependable strategic partners. If Washington continues to share intelligence, counter terrorism cooperation, or drone technology with Islamabad, it becomes harder for Indian agencies to fully align with U.S. platforms, fearing compromise.
This dynamic also plays into Chinese interests. Beijing would welcome an Indian hesitancy to deepen defense ties with the West, thereby keeping New Delhi off balance while reinforcing the China-Pakistan axis.
Transactionalism vs. Principle: Can the U.S. Learn?
To be fair, U.S.-Pakistan relations have always been transactional. Washington needed Pakistan to counter the Soviets, then the Taliban, now perhaps Iran. Pakistan, in turn, has mastered the art of strategic rent-seeking—offering “access” in exchange for aid, while hedging bets with China and keeping Islamist proxies alive as leverage.
But in a world of multipolarity, this model is decaying. American policymakers must recognise that short-term convenience with Islamabad comes at the cost of long-term credibility in New Delhi. In contrast, India’s trajectory—from constitutional democracy to space exploration—is an affirmative case for investment, partnership, and trust.
The Path Ahead: Choose Values, Not Just Access
As the U.S. recalibrates its strategy for West Asia and the Indo-Pacific, it must make a choice: Does it want a transactional ally or a transformational partner? Engaging Pakistan for bases to strike Iran may offer short-term leverage, but it emboldens a military establishment with a history of double games. Worse, it reinforces a geopolitical model that conflates utility with legitimacy, rewarding the very behaviours that destabilise South Asia.
India, by contrast, represents the democratic anchor of the region. Its restraint in crises, its pluralistic ethos, and its technological aspirations make it not just a reliable partner but a civilizational counterweight to authoritarianism and theocracy. It’s time Washington acknowledged this—not just in words, but in action.
