From 9/11 to the Iran War, Pakistan-US Ties Remain Transactional

Why Does Transactional Diplomacy Limit Long-Term Trust?

Pakistan’s relationship with the United States has repeatedly shifted over the past two decades, marked by periods of close cooperation followed by sharp distancing, while its ties with India have remained comparatively stable. This pattern reflects a fundamental difference in how each bilateral relationship is structured and sustained. The fluctuating nature of Pakistan-US ties stems from their transactional basis, where engagement rises and falls depending on immediate strategic needs rather than long-term trust or shared institutional frameworks.

The roots of this dynamic trace back to the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, when Pakistan became a key ally in the U. S.-led war in Afghanistan, granting access to bases and intelligence in exchange for aid and diplomatic support. However, as U. S. priorities shifted—particularly during the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia and later under Trump’s emphasis on burden-sharing—relations cooled, especially amid accusations of harboring militants. The cycle repeated during the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, where Pakistan’s role was again sought but met with skepticism over its influence on the Taliban. Unlike Pakistan, India’s relationship with the U. S. has grown steadily through institutionalized dialogue, defense agreements, and alignment on issues like countering China, creating a more predictable partnership.

Can Pakistan Shift From Reactive to Strategic Engagement?

Transactional ties often produce short-term gains but undermine strategic predictability. When cooperation depends solely on current crises—such as counterterrorism or regional stability—any shift in U. S. foreign policy immediately affects the relationship. Pakistan has experienced this repeatedly: sanctions after nuclear tests in 1998, aid suspensions over drone strikes, and renewed engagement during crises. These swings hinder long-term planning on both sides, particularly in areas like economic development, institutional reform, and regional security. In contrast, the U. S.-India relationship has evolved beyond immediate needs, incorporating joint military exercises, technology sharing, and multilateral coordination, which buffer against political changes in either capital.

Moving beyond transactionalism would require Pakistan to build domestic consensus on foreign policy, reduce reliance on external bailouts, and invest in diplomatic capacity that outlives individual leaders or administrations. It would also need the U. S. to recognize that sustainable influence in South Asia depends not just on crisis management but on consistent partnership. Until then, the cycle of engagement and disengagement is likely to continue, especially as global attention turns to new flashpoints like the Iran-Israel conflict, where Pakistan’s position could again be tested. For now, the pattern endures: when the U. S. needs Pakistan, ties warm; when the immediate need passes, they cool again.

Why has Pakistan’s relationship with the U. S. been so unstable compared to India’s? Pakistan’s ties with the U. S. are based on immediate strategic needs, such as counterterrorism or regional stability, leading to fluctuating cooperation. India’s relationship has grown through long-term institutional frameworks, including defense pacts and economic dialogue, making it more resilient to political shifts.

Frequently Asked Questions

What role did the 9/11 attacks play in shaping Pakistan-US relations? The 9/11 attacks prompted Pakistan to become a frontline ally in the U. S. war in Afghanistan, resulting in increased aid and military cooperation. However, as U. S. objectives changed, the relationship deteriorated due to disagreements over militant groups and sovereignty concerns.

Could future U. S. policies lead to a more stable partnership with Pakistan? A more stable relationship would require moving beyond crisis-driven engagement to sustained dialogue, mutual trust, and cooperation on non-security issues like trade and climate. Both countries would need to prioritize predictability over expediency, which remains a challenge given domestic and regional pressures.