Daily Times

Those with enough time to spare so as to read my work with care, might recall that, soon after Trump became President and began his [apparently] insane activities, in an article for this daily, I attempted to present a picture of him based on his life as known to the public.

Trump was a billionaire, went bankrupt and recovered, not once but numerous times. On at least one occasion he was able to convince a number of banks to appoint him as “liquidator” of his own assets; from which he was able to recover enough millions to start again immediately. I concluded there from that a) he could not be insane, b) he had to be a wily negotiator and, if he is, c) he also has to be able to lie convincingly. Furthermore, the apparent insanity could be an act for effect.

Most American friends disagreed, some vehemently, but I felt that the effects he created from his initial [apparent] insanities actually supported my contentions. Of late, US policies seem to vindicate my position further. Having surrounded himself with known hardliners, Trump has pulled back from being center-stage and left others to front for him, giving himself plausible deniability.

And the quiet subtlety with which Trump’s US has repositioned itself from the threatening bluffs, is quite amazing. Having Delhi hooked with the offer of being a “Strategic Partner”, (which is quite worrisome for Pakistan), the US continued assuring Delhi of its enhanced role in Afghanistan, at the cost of Pakistan.

Mike Pompeo’s call to the COAS, not the PM or foreign minister, was the confirmatory sign of a change in US policy; soon followed by drone attacks on Afghan soil targeting Pakistani militants, including Fazlullah, the leader of TTP. This was among the most prominent demands Pakistan had been making of the US

However, whether it was the removal of Nawaz Sharif, the confidence of Khaqan Abbasi, or the enhanced role of the Pakistani military that prompted the change, US policy for this region has undergone a dramatic shift. The Afghan PM, who doesn’t do much without Washington’s approval, began the process by working out a formula with Abbasi.

Mike Pompeo’s call to the chief of army staff (COAS), not the prime minister (PM) or foreign minister, was the confirmatory sign; soon followed by drone attacks on Afghan soil targeting Pakistani militants, including Fazlullah, the leader of TTP. This was among the most prominent demands Pakistan had been making of the US.

Later followed by the cancellation of the scheduled visit of Indian defense minister and foreign minister to the US. Pompeo even spoke to the Pakistani interim PM and, Ms. Alice Well’s recent visit to Pakistan, during which she, among others, met not only the COAS but also the CGS, seem clearly intended to indicate that, at least for the present, the threatening bluff has been called off.

I had earlier also dwelt on the hazards of bluffing at the military or diplomatic level. However, Trump’s threats have been multi-directional. The problem with such a policy is that if and when you pull back, you cannot pull back from all fronts. Interestingly, Trump has also decided to pull back from his position against North Korea. Does this also indicate a rethink on US’ China policy? That is a very distinct possibility. If so, the dimension of US threat to the world will reduce.

US has also opened up a front with EU; particularly in its trade policy. Its tariffs are imposed on trade with EU but not necessarily on bilateral trade with countries that are part of the union. I am not certain if this is a bluff. It’s too direct and well considered to be taken lightly. Particularly, after US not only left the Paris Accord, but has issued not-too-veiled threats to WTO and even NATO.

Clearly US policy towards Europe is re-evolving. Is it because a more economically and politically empowered EU might also seek an enhanced and competitive military role on the world stage? Or is it following Liddelhart’s strategy of the indirect approach; seeking a rapprochement with Russia as part of a possible realigned US’ China policy? Too early to say just yet.

However, the one direction where US’ aggressive policies have been and remain steadfast, is in the Middle East, specifically its ant-Iran policy. I have repeatedly suggested that, Pakistan desperately needs a foreign policy, since we don’t have one. But it also needs to be reconsidered in the light of new priorities, especially with regard to protecting our western flank. A US policy intent on destabilising Iran is, therefore clearly against Pakistani interests.

Ironically, this US anti-Iran position, including US imposed sanctions on all countries trading with Iran, is viewed as being another important indicator of Delhi having fallen out of favor with DC since Delhi’s interest in Chabahar has multiple dimensions and it has invested substantially in Iran.

The first thought that comes to mind is that Iran is an interest common to both India and Pakistan; which we could build upon. Alas, even this can’t help improve our bilateral relations with Delhi. Delhi’s interest in Iran and especially in Chabahar are another means of isolating Pakistan and using Iran territory to spread unrest in Pakistan.

If I am not again erring in my assessment of things; this time, regarding Trump’s bluffs, let’s hope this is the last switch in US policy towards the region.

The writer is a retired brigadier. He is also former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI)

Published in Daily Times, July 8^th 2018.