US PRESIDENT Donald Trump on June 18 hosted Pakistan鈥檚 army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, at a high-profile lunch at the White House. The meeting marks a significant diplomatic anomaly. Never before has a sitting US president directly engaged with a Pakistani military leader who was not the country鈥檚 head of state. The timing and nature of this engagement raise critical questions about the underlying motivation and potential implication for regional geopolitics.
The invitation is striking given three key factors. First, it represents an unprecedented direct engagement between a U. president and a Pakistani army chief in a non-dictatorial context. Second, it comes at a time when Pakistan鈥檚 nuclear arsenal remains a focal point of US strategic concerns. Third, and perhaps the most significant, the meeting coincides with escalating US-Israeli military operations against Iran over its nuclear programme, a conflict where Pakistan鈥檚 geographic and strategic position makes it an important player.
听
Strategic significance
THE decision to invite Asim Munir rather than Pakistan鈥檚 civilian leadership underscores a fundamental reality in US-Pakistan relations. The military remains the ultimate arbiter of Pakistan鈥檚 security and foreign policy. Unlike traditional diplomatic protocols, where heads of state engage their civilian counterparts, Trump鈥檚 direct outreach to the army chief signals a calculated acknowledgment of where real power resides in Islamabad.
This move suggests a deliberate bypassing of Pakistan鈥檚 fragile democratic institutions in favor of more decisive military channels. The United States has engaged with Pakistan鈥檚 military leadership primarily during periods of dictatorship such as under General Ayub Khan, General Zia-ul-Haq and General Pervez Musharraf. By engaging Munir while a civilian government nominally holds power, Trump is reinforcing the military鈥檚 dominance in matters of national security and foreign policy.
The implications are profound. On the one hand, it reflects Washington鈥檚 pragmatic approach to dealing with Pakistan, recognising that any meaningful agreement on counterterrorism, nuclear stability or regional security must involve the generals rather than the politicians. On the other hand, it risks further undermining Pakistan鈥檚 democratic institutions by legitimising the military鈥檚 outsized role in governance.
听
Pakistan鈥檚 nuclear arsenal
PAKISTAN鈥橲 nuclear capabilities add another layer of urgency to this engagement. As the world鈥檚 fifth-largest nuclear power, with an estimated 165 to 200 warheads, many of them are tactical weapons designed for battlefield use against India. Pakistan鈥檚 nuclear posture has for long been a source of concern for US policymakers.
The United States has consistently sought assurances regarding the security and command-and-control mechanisms of Pakistan鈥檚 nuclear arsenal, particularly in the light of the country鈥檚 history of militant infiltration and AQ Khan鈥檚 proliferation network alleged by the United States. With the US-Israel alliance and Iran conflict escalating, Washington鈥檚 anxieties about regional nuclear stability have grown.
By meeting Munir, Trump may be seeking explicit guarantees that Pakistan will not engage in destabilising nuclear posturing amid the Iran crisis. Additionally, the United States likely wants to prevent any potential transfer of nuclear technology or expertise to Iran, a scenario that would dramatically alter the balance of power against Israel.
听
Pakistan鈥檚 role in Iran conflict
THE timing of this meeting is inextricably linked to the escalating US-Israeli military campaign against Iran. Pakistan鈥檚 909-kilometre border with Iran and its historical ties with Tehran make it a critical player in this conflict.
From a US perspective, Pakistan鈥檚 cooperation, or at least its neutrality, could be pivotal in several ways. First, the United States may seek access to Pakistani airspace for potential strikes on Iranian targets, much as it did during the Afghan war. Second, Washington likely wants Pakistan to clamp down on Iran-backed militant groups operating near the shared border such as the Zainebiyoun Brigade, which recruits Pakistani Shia fighters for Iran鈥檚 Revolutionary Guard.
However, Pakistan faces a delicate balancing act. Overtly siding with the United States against Iran could provoke domestic unrest, particularly among Pakistan鈥檚 significant Shia minority (15鈥�20 per cent of the population). Moreover, Iran could retaliate by supporting Baloch separatists or other anti-state elements within Pakistan.
Given these risks, Pakistan is more likely to offer limited, behind-the-scenes cooperation such as intelligence sharing while publicly maintaining a stance of neutrality. This approach would allow Islamabad to placate Washington without triggering a backlash from Tehran or its domestic constituencies.
听
Counterbalancing New Delhi
ANOTHER critical dimension of this engagement is its implications for US-India relations. Under Trump, India has emerged as a key strategic partner, with deepening military ties, intelligence-sharing agreements and joint initiatives to counter China鈥檚 influence on the Indo-Pacific.
By hosting Pakistan鈥檚 army chief, Trump may be sending out a subtle message to New Delhi that India should not take US support for granted. This could serve as leverage to encourage India to adopt a harder line on Iran or to moderate its stance on Kashmir.
At the same time, the United States may be offering Pakistan an opportunity to rehabilitate its international standing by curbing anti-India militant groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba. Such a move could ease US pressure on Pakistan over terrorism, freeing up diplomatic bandwidth for the more pressing Iran conflict.
听
Can US pull Pakistan off Beijing?
PAKISTAN鈥橲 deepening ties with China add another layer of complexity to this diplomatic manoeuvre. China鈥檚 $62 billion investment in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and its role as Pakistan鈥檚 primary arms supplier have cemented Beijing鈥檚 influence on Islamabad.
Trump鈥檚 outreach to Munir may be an attempt to loosen China鈥檚 grip by offering alternative military and economic incentives. This could include reviving US arms sales (such as F-16 fighter jets) or supporting Pakistan鈥檚 efforts to secure IMF bailouts. Pakistan will certainly take a note while considering US arms purchase that it could not use its existing F-16 inventory in time of crisis.
However, a full-scale realignment is unlikely. Pakistan鈥檚 dependence on China is too entrenched and the risks of alienating Beijing is too high. Instead, Islamabad is more likely to pursue a hedging strategy, maintaining its alliance with China while cautiously exploring opportunities for engagement with the United States.
听
Implications in Pakistan and US
WITHIN Pakistan, the meeting is touted as a major diplomatic victory for the military establishment. At a time of economic crisis and political instability, the army鈥檚 ability to secure high-level engagement with the United States reinforces its image as the ultimate guardian of national interests.
For Trump, the move aligns with his strongman diplomatic style, showcasing his willingness to break conventional protocols to achieve strategic objectives. It also serves as a preemptive strike against critics who might accuse his administration of neglecting Pakistan鈥檚 role in regional stability.
听
Temporary alignment
IN SUM, Trump鈥檚 lunch with Pakistan鈥檚 army chief is best understood as a tactical manoeuvre rather than the dawn of a new strategic alliance. The primary US objectives appear to be securing Pakistan鈥檚 neutrality in the Iran conflict, preventing a broader anti-US coalition involving China and Russia and maintaining leverage over India.
Pakistan, for its part, is likely to offer limited cooperation while avoiding any overt break with Iran or China. The long-term trajectory of US-Pakistan relations will depend on whether this engagement yields tangible benefits such as sanctions relief or military aid or if it fizzles out as another chapter in the two nations鈥� fraught and transactional relationship.
The coming weeks will reveal whether this was a fleeting diplomatic gesture or the start of a deeper strategic recalibration. For now, it stands as a testament to the enduring complexities of great-power politics in South Asia and the Middle East.
听
Mohammad Abdur Razzak ([email protected]), a retired commodore of the Bangladesh navy, is a security analyst.
