US-Pakistan relations beyond the Trump factor

In July 1971, Henry Kissinger, then National Security Adviser to US President Richard Nixon, was unwell and resting at a mountain resort in Nathiagali, outside Islamabad. That was the story Pakistani officials allowed to circulate.

In reality, Kissinger was on his way to Beijing, traveling secretly through Pakistan to meet Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai. The carefully arranged meeting concealed one of the most consequential diplomatic missions of the Cold War.

Pakistan had provided Washington with a channel to a government with which the United States had no formal diplomatic relations. The secret visit paved the way for President Nixon’s historic 1972 visit to China and fundamentally altered the international balance of power.

Pakistan had offered Washington diplomatic access, political trust and a reliable intermediary. More than five decades later, circumstances have changed, but this feature of the relationship remains unchanged.

What Washington gains

Pakistan’s relationship with Washington has once again attracted considerable attention. President Donald Trump has welcomed Pakistani leadership, publicly praised its military leadership and opened new avenues for cooperation.

Yet critics question whether this diplomatic visibility has translated into sufficient economic and strategic returns. That concern raises a more important question: What does Washington actually gain from maintaining relations with Pakistan, and how does diplomatic engagement eventually translate into tangible economic and strategic benefits?

The answer begins with understanding that international diplomacy is not a charitable arrangement. Countries engage with one another because their interests overlap. These interests may evolve with changing administrations, regional developments and global power dynamics, but they do not automatically disappear when a president leaves office or loses political influence.

The history of US-Pakistan relations illustrates this reality. During the 1980s, Pakistan became a central partner in the American-backed effort against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, it again emerged as a frontline partner in the US-led war on terrorism. Despite periods of disagreements and strained relations, Washington and Islamabad repeatedly returned to cooperation because neither could disregard the other’s role in regional security.

This recurring engagement is not simply a product of personal relationships between political leaders. It reflects a geographical and strategic reality. Pakistan sits at the intersection of South Asia, Afghanistan, Central Asia and the wider Middle East.

Its relationships across these regions provide Washington with diplomatic channels and opportunities for engagement that would otherwise be difficult to establish. Pakistan’s strategic relevance, therefore, extends well beyond traditional security cooperation.

Iran war mediation

The recent US-Iran conflict has demonstrated this potential particularly clearly. Pakistan’s longstanding relations with both Washington and Tehran positioned it to facilitate communication between two countries that do not maintain direct diplomatic relations.

Islamabad helped broker the April 2026 ceasefire, hosted the first round of high-level US-Iran talks and subsequently facilitated the June 2026 Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding. Pakistan and Qatar also participated in the subsequent negotiations in Switzerland.

This does not mean that every mediation effort has succeeded or that Pakistan can dictate the outcome of negotiations between major powers. Indeed, the implementation of the understanding remains challenging. But diplomacy should not be measured solely by whether a final settlement is achieved immediately.

A country’s ability to establish communication channels, reduce misunderstandings, bring adversaries to the negotiating table and create opportunities to prevent wider conflict carries considerable strategic value.

Such contributions may not immediately appear on a financial balance sheet, but they can significantly influence regional stability and international security.

Trade and critical minerals

The economic dimension of the relationship is equally important. The United States remains Pakistan’s largest single-country export market, providing a substantial foundation for bilateral economic engagement.

According to the US Trade Representative, total US-Pakistan trade in goods and services reached an estimated US$11.5 billion in 2025, representing a 14% increase over 2024. US imports from Pakistan alone amounted to approximately $5.4 billion in goods during 2025. Furthermore, Pakistan’s Economic Survey 2025-26 identified the United States as its largest export destination, accounting for 19.9% of exports during July-March FY2026.

Critical minerals represent another emerging area of mutual interest. Pakistan possesses considerable deposits of copper, gold, antimony, tungsten and rare earth elements, resources that have become increasingly important to advanced manufacturing, defense, aerospace and technology supply chains.

In September 2025, Pakistan’s Frontier Works Organization signed a memorandum of understanding with Missouri-based US Strategic Metals, envisaging approximately $500 million in investment and cooperation in mineral extraction, processing and the possible establishment of a polymetallic refinery in Pakistan. The initial phase is expected to include exports of readily available minerals, followed by expanded processing capacity.

Although a memorandum of understanding is not the same as completed investment, and announced commercial opportunities are not equivalent to operational projects, they show that the relationship is taking on an economic dimension that extends beyond military and counterterrorism cooperation.

It is important to understand that international partnerships develop in stages. Diplomatic access creates opportunities for negotiations. Negotiations produce agreements. Agreements, when implemented effectively, generate measurable economic activity.

Each stage must be assessed on its own merits. Pakistan should be held accountable for delivering results, but it should not be judged as though every prospective benefit must materialize immediately to qualify as progress.

The India comparison

Additionally, critics usually evaluate Pakistan’s relationship with Washington against India’s.

Both countries offer Washington different strategic advantages. India’s importance is connected to the American Indo-Pacific strategy and Washington’s interest in balancing China’s growing influence.

Pakistan, meanwhile, offers geographical access, counterterrorism cooperation, regional diplomatic channels and opportunities in critical mineral supply chains. These are different sets of interests..

Moreover, the US-India relationship has demonstrated that strategic importance does not eliminate disagreements. In 2025, the Trump administration imposed a 25% reciprocal tariff on Indian goods and an additional 25% duty linked to India’s purchases of Russian oil, taking the combined rate to 50%.

Disagreement over Trump’s role in facilitating the May 2025 India-Pakistan ceasefire also created diplomatic friction. Although Washington and New Delhi announced an interim trade framework in February 2026, reducing the reciprocal tariff, negotiations have continued to face difficulties. As recently as November 10, 2026, the two sides are still negotiating the first tranche of their trade agreement.

The point is not that US-India relations have collapsed. But each country should be assessed independently, not in relation to another, as every country faces certain problems.

The morning after midterms

The outcome of the November 2026 US midterm elections offers another reminder of why Pakistan must look beyond the Trump administration.

The Democratic Party’s victories in both the House of Representatives and the Senate will significantly alter Washington’s political environment and constrain the administration’s legislative agenda.

However, a change in congressional control does not automatically erase the strategic and economic interests that underpin bilateral relations. Trade, counterterrorism, regional stability and critical mineral supply chains remain relevant regardless of which party controls Congress.

Pakistan’s Foreign Office has already reiterated that Islamabad intends to maintain relations with successive American administrations, irrespective of which political party holds power.

This is the correct approach. Pakistan must strengthen engagement with lawmakers from both parties, develop institutional and working-level relationships, pursue transparent commercial arrangements and ensure that announced projects move towards implementation.

Echoes of 1971

The lesson from 1971 is particularly relevant here.

Pakistan’s importance to Washington did not emerge because of a temporary political friendship. It emerged because Islamabad could help advance an American strategic objective at a critical moment in international politics. The same principle has repeatedly shaped bilateral engagement in subsequent decades, whether through Afghanistan, counterterrorism, regional security or diplomatic facilitation.

Pakistan does not need to demonstrate that it can remain indispensable to every American administration. Nor does it need to compete with India for a single place in Washington’s foreign policy calculations. It needs to identify where its national interests converge with those of the United States and build practical, sustainable cooperation around those areas.

Ultimately, the real measure of Pakistan’s diplomacy is not how warmly an American president speaks about its leadership or how much attention a White House meeting attracts. It is how Pakistan can convert its strategic position, regional relationships, economic potential and diplomatic access into outcomes that survive political transitions.

The secret diplomacy of 1971 demonstrated what Pakistan could offer Washington when their interests converged. More than five decades later, the opportunities may be different, but the underlying principle remains the same, as international relationships endure not because of personalities, but because of interests.

Pakistan now has to ensure that its diplomacy continues to turn those shared interests into lasting national gains.

Farwa Imtiaz is an independent academic researcher with a master’s degree in peace and conflict studies from the National Defence University, Pakistan. Her work has been featured in The Friday Times, Paradigm Shift, South Asia Times, Voice of Germany, Global Connectivities, Stratheia, EcoAsiaNews, International Policy Journal, South Asia
Journal, Sri Lanka Guardian, Global South Forum and Middle East Monitor.