Pakistan: Has The Discussion Changed?

It may be the Pakistan leadership wants only to survive, keep its nuclear weapons, and work to secure sufficient funds to take care of its ruling elite - and wait for the day that US forces leave the neighbourhood.

The Trump administration has sought to change foreign policy conventional wisdom about the nuclear threat from Pakistan. To do this, the administration first had to cement the US relationship with its new ally, India.

The security implications of a permanently nuclear-armed Pakistan having weak government, however, are sufficiently serious to support the administration's initiative to keep Pakistan’s nuclear bombs safe from falling into the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists.

President Trump had to assert that the US was in the business of deterring Pakistan, not the other way around. Trump's comment about reducing aid to Pakistan was not just macho bragging, but a decision acted upon. The Trump administration was sending a very strong message that the US would no longer be silent in the face of Pakistani threats to turn Afghanistan into a sea of fire.

Indeed, why would Pakistan bargain away its nuclear weapons capability if they believe that precisely that capability is what guarantees the survival of its regime? It only makes sense for Pakistan to give up its nuclear capability if they are, in fact, not to protect its sovereignty or guarantee its survival, but for some other purpose. What if instead, for example, Pakistan regards its nuclear program as the very leverage necessary to bargain concessions from the US USSR and China? What if the goal were to secure an extremely important concession - the reining of rising Indian influence in the sub-continent, a goal long-sought, put on the table when Bhutto accepted to feed grass to Pakistanis but make nuclear bomb to restrain India?

It is likely that Islamabad may change. Pakistan, for the first time, may explicitly agree to dismantle its nuclear terror-infrastructure, but in return for all cuts and sanctions that are "harmful" to the people of Pakistan being eliminated. This may seems as a "small deal" proposal, but nonetheless it has an actual value heretofore never put on the table.

What the Pakistan may not agree to is any requirement that ALL Pakistani nuclear facilities and weapons be dismantled - "a very big deal" - implying that Pakistani “deep state” knows that they have considerably more nuclear facilities than those Iran is working hard to acquire.

During all these nearly 20 years of "strategic patience," which led only to more Pakistani bombs and increase in their support to terrorism and terrorists, US has failed to control Pakistan despite calling Pakistan as an important ally in “War on Terror.” US should be willing to see that the very nature of the discussion has now been changed - to a non-priority focus on Pakistan’s misuse of F-16 against India and not on the Pakistan’s "hostile policy" in the region.

International Strategic relations are played using national power – diplomatic, information, military, economic, financial, intelligence, and law enforcement – and not just a warm handshake or a cold statement.

___________________________________________

“Likes” "Follows" "Shares" and "Comments" welcome.

To ensure the quality of the discussion, comments may be edited for clarity, length, and relevance. Comments that are overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic may be deleted.