In the great geopolitical tug-of-war between China and the United States, Pakistan has emerged as a critical—and controversial—prize. From intelligence sharing and military logistics to strategic infrastructure and proxy conflict, both superpowers need Pakistan—but at what cost?
While Washington sees Pakistan as a necessary partner to counter terrorism and regional instability, Beijing sees it as a strategic lever against India. Meanwhile, Pakistan plays both sides, leveraging its geostrategic location and military dominance to extract economic bailouts, weapons, and diplomatic clout. But this balancing act, rooted in opportunism and shadowy agendas, may prove unsustainable—and dangerous for all involved.
The American Lifeline: Why Washington Still Backs Pakistan?
Despite decades of mistrust, the U.S. continues to view Pakistan as a necessary ally in a volatile region. This is not about friendship—it’s about necessity. During the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan served as a critical logistical route and intelligence partner. And now, amid rising tension with Iran, Washington once again needs Islamabad.
In Operation Sindoor—a classified U.S.-led intelligence and logistics maneuver—Washington is believed to have shielded Pakistan from internal collapse while using its soil to monitor and collect data on Iran. Pakistani intelligence operatives are quietly supporting U.S. and Israeli interests along the Iranian border, acting as forward eyes and ears.
In return, the U.S. has rewarded Islamabad generously:
A $7 billion IMF bailout, strongly influenced by U.S. diplomatic backing.
$300 million in funding for F-16 maintenance, even after previous aid freezes.
Unofficial U.S. military access to Noor Khan Air Base, long suspected of hosting covert American operations.
A surprisingly warm political gesture: Pakistan’s army nominated Donald Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize, reportedly due to his role in brokering the recent Indo-Pak ceasefire.
Despite public criticism of Pakistan’s ties to terrorism, America continues to fund, arm, and diplomatically protect its military-run government, often turning a blind eye to its darker undercurrents.
China’s “Iron Brother”: Strategic Depth and Silent Control
While America plays the short game of counterterrorism and containment, China plays the long game—infrastructure, loans, and military integration.
Beijing’s interest in Pakistan is clear:
The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) links China’s western frontier to the Arabian Sea, bypassing maritime chokepoints.
Also read: Pakistan Army Chief in USA, meets with Trump, Iran on the radar?
China is Pakistan’s largest arms supplier, now preparing to deliver 40 J-35 fifth-generation stealth jets, HQ-19 ballistic missile systems, and KJ-500 AWACS aircraft.
Beijing has also backed Islamabad politically in every international forum, shielding it from UN sanctions and supporting its claims in Kashmir.
Even as Baloch insurgents target Chinese workers and debt repayment stalls, Beijing remains committed, seeing Pakistan as a crucial buffer against India and a launching point for regional dominance.
Terrorism, Military Rule, and the High Cost of Partnership
The problem? Pakistan is not a normal state—it is a state sponsor of terrorism. Its military establishment uses jihadist groups as foreign policy tools, especially against India. Groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and the Haqqani Network continue to operate from Pakistani soil with impunity.
Osama bin Laden was sheltered in Abbottabad, mere kilometers from Pakistan’s military academy.
The Mumbai attacks were orchestrated by Pakistan-based terror cells.
Afghan Taliban leadership enjoyed safe havens in Pakistan throughout the U.S. occupation.
All of this occurs under the iron grip of the Pakistani army, which dominates the government, the economy, and foreign policy. Civilian leadership is often reduced to a rubber stamp. This is not a democracy—it’s a uniformed oligarchy, propped up by global powers for convenience.
Double-Dealing Diplomacy: A Dangerous Game for All
Pakistan’s ability to court both the U.S. and China is strategic, but deceptive.
To Washington, it is a bulwark against terrorism and Iran.
To Beijing, it is a frontline ally in a proxy struggle against India.
Pakistan plays both sides—milking aid, arms, and political support from two rival empires. But this duplicity is not without risks.
For China:
Supporting Pakistan’s military and terror-friendly policies could blow back into Xinjiang or undermine BRI stability.
India, a rising superpower, may respond aggressively to provocations enabled by Chinese weapons in Pakistani hands.
For the U.S.:
Continued patronage of Pakistan undermines its stated goals of counterterrorism and democracy promotion.
Reliance on a military dictatorship that sponsors terrorism creates moral and strategic contradictions.
Conclusion: A Double-Faced Partner in a Triple-Front Conflict
Pakistan is the geopolitical equivalent of a mercenary—loyal only to opportunity. It profits from instability, weaponizes extremism, and sells its alliances to the highest bidder. Whether under the Stars and Stripes or the Red Flag, Islamabad has mastered the art of two-faced diplomacy.
But this is not sustainable.
Patronizing Pakistan may buy short-term leverage, but it also empowers a military regime that fuels conflict and radicalism. As China and the U.S. increasingly lock horns in Asia, their mutual “ally” may prove to be the wildcard that drags them both into deeper confrontation—with each other and with the regional giant, India.
In the long run, any country that supports Pakistan without forcing accountability risks global security—and regional war. For both Washington and Beijing, it’s time to ask: Is this “strategic partner” worth the strategic cost?
