NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
As Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, emerged as a key intermediary in negotiations tied to the escalating Iran crisis, Washington once again found itself relying on a country that American officials have spent decades accusing of playing both sides in the war on terror.
Munir has emerged as a key intermediary in negotiations aimed at preventing renewed conflict with Iran, placing Pakistan — despite decades of accusations involving Taliban safe havens, nuclear proliferation and Osama bin Laden — back at the center of U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East.
The latest negotiations have again exposed one of the biggest contradictions in U.S. foreign policy: Washington keeps turning to Pakistan even after years of tension, distrust and accusations that elements of the country’s security establishment supported militant groups fighting American troops.
ISLAMABAD DENIES SHELTERING IRAN JETS, TRUMP PRAISES PAKISTAN’S MEDIATION AS ‘ABSOLUTELY GREAT’
Pakistan’s renewed diplomatic role has come under heightened scrutiny — and exposed divisions among Republicans — after allegations that Iranian military aircraft may have been moved into Pakistani territory during the recent conflict, claims Islamabad has denied.
“I don’t trust Pakistan as far as I can throw them,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said May 12. “If they actually have Iranian aircraft parked in Pakistan bases to protect Iranian military assets, that tells me maybe we should be looking for somebody else to mediate.”
Trump, however, publicly praised Pakistan’s leadership the same day.
“They’re great,” Trump told reporters May 12. “I think the Pakistanis have been great. The field marshal and the prime minister of Pakistan have been absolutely great.”
“Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir have been helpful mediators, and the United States is grateful for Pakistan’s efforts to bring an end to the conflict. When Iran’s nuclear threat is removed for good, the entire world will be safer and more stable,” White House spokesperson Olivia Wales told Fox News Digital in a statement.
Where Pakistan burned the US
Pakistan has long occupied an uneasy place in American foreign policy.
The nuclear-armed country borders both Iran and Afghanistan, maintains deep ties across the region’s security landscape and has historically been viewed by U.S. officials as too strategically important to fully isolate.
Even critics who accuse Pakistan of double-dealing acknowledge Washington has struggled to disengage from Islamabad because of the country’s nuclear arsenal, geographic position and influence over regional militant networks.
But distrust between Washington and Islamabad deepened dramatically after U.S. forces killed bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in 2011 — a military town located near the country’s premier military academy.
“The fact that we had to do that operation without Pakistani support speaks volumes as to how much we trusted them,” Bill Roggio, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and editor of the Long War Journal, told Fox News Digital.
Critics and former U.S. officials long questioned whether Pakistani intelligence could have been unaware of bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad, though Pakistan has repeatedly denied knowingly sheltering him.
Analysts say Pakistan’s military establishment also spent years viewing Afghanistan through the lens of its rivalry with India, seeing a Taliban-friendly government in Kabul as a form of strategic leverage against Indian influence in the region.
“They view Afghanistan as strategic depth,” Roggio said.
Analysts say Pakistan’s security establishment historically differentiated between militant groups targeting Pakistan itself and groups viewed as useful against India or in Afghanistan — a strategy critics argue led Islamabad to tolerate or maintain ties with some Taliban-linked and anti-India groups even while cooperating with U.S. counterterrorism operations after 9/11.
Pakistani officials also have argued the country paid a heavy price for aligning with Washington after 9/11, pointing to years of suicide bombings, insurgent attacks and instability inside Pakistan itself.
Pakistan’s defense minister recently acknowledged the country had done “dirty work” for the U.S. and the West during decades of regional conflict, arguing policies tied to the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan and the post-9/11 era ultimately destabilized Pakistan itself.
Roggio argued Pakistan’s security establishment spent years publicly cooperating with Washington while simultaneously tolerating or supporting Taliban-linked groups fighting American troops in Afghanistan.
PAKISTAN FLIP FLOPS ON TRUMP NOBEL PEACE PRIZE NOMINATION AFTER LESS THAN 24 HOURS
“Pakistan supported the Taliban knowing that they were killing Americans,” he said.
Pakistan’s latest diplomatic role has also drawn renewed scrutiny after allegations that Iranian military aircraft may have been moved into Pakistani territory during the recent conflict — claims Islamabad has denied.
Pakistan’s nuclear history has fueled concern in Washington for decades as well. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the architect of Pakistan’s nuclear program, later admitted operating a proliferation network that transferred nuclear technology and expertise to countries including Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Counterterrorism analysts and former U.S. officials have long warned that al Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups continued finding sanctuary in parts of Pakistan’s tribal regions even after the 9/11 attacks, though the scale of those networks remains debated.
Pakistani officials have long denied supporting terrorist organizations and argue the country has itself suffered heavily from Islamist violence, including attacks by ISIS-K and the Pakistani Taliban. Islamabad also has denied allegations that Iranian military aircraft were sheltered inside Pakistan during the recent conflict.
Why Trump is betting on Pakistan again
More than a decade after the bin Laden raid shattered trust between Washington and Islamabad, Pakistan’s military leadership has again emerged as a critical diplomatic channel for Washington — this time during the escalating crisis involving Iran.
Trump increasingly has engaged Munir directly in recent weeks, reinforcing longstanding perceptions that Pakistan’s military — rather than its civilian government — remains the country’s dominant power center.
Munir, a former intelligence chief, has leveraged Pakistan’s longstanding relationships across the region to position himself as a channel between Washington and Tehran.
Roggio argued Pakistan is also attempting to rehabilitate its international image by presenting itself as a stabilizing force in the region.
“They’re trying to present an image of being a purveyor of peace in the region,” he said.
Earlier rounds of diplomacy tied to the Iran conflict were also hosted in Islamabad, elevating Pakistan’s role as a regional intermediary.
Pakistan and Qatar appear to have emerged as complementary diplomatic channels rather than competing ones during the latest negotiations involving Iran.
Analysts say Pakistan’s military leadership has increasingly positioned itself as a political and security intermediary between Washington and Tehran, while Qatar has remained central to the more formal diplomatic and financial dimensions of regional negotiations.
Qatar, which hosted negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban that led to the 2020 Doha agreement laying out the framework for the eventual U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, has again emerged as a central diplomatic channel as talks intensified over the weekend.
Pakistan also played a behind-the-scenes role in those negotiations, reflecting Washington’s longstanding reliance on Islamabad’s ties to the Taliban leadership during the Afghanistan war.
Critics of the Doha agreement argued it sidelined the U.S.-backed Afghan government while strengthening the Taliban ahead of its return to power in 2021.
Pakistan’s relationship with the Taliban also has become increasingly strained since the group returned to power in Afghanistan. Pakistani officials have accused Taliban authorities of failing to stop militants launching attacks into Pakistan from across the border, and Islamabad has threatened military action against some groups operating near Afghan territory.
The divide over Pakistan reflects a broader debate that has shaped U.S. foreign policy for decades: whether Washington’s strategic need for Islamabad outweighs longstanding concerns over the country’s relationships with militant groups and regional adversaries.
More than a decade after the bin Laden raid shattered trust between Washington and Islamabad, Pakistan has once again become a diplomatic channel the U.S. appears unable — or unwilling — to avoid during one of the region’s most volatile crises.
Read the full article here
