'Pakistan is an ally who gives the US access.'
'If we have a presence there, it puts us that much closer to China and puts our assets closer to China and Iran.'
The United States is deepening ties with Pakistan primarily to secure closer military access, which positions American assets nearer to its adversaries, such as China and Iran, according to Paul Poast, associate professor in the department of political science at the University of Chicago.
Speaking to ANI on Friday, on the evolving US-Pakistan relationship under President Donald Trump's second administration, Poast highlighted how Islamabad's strategic location serves as a vital gateway for US operations in such a volatile region.
"They are an ally who gives the US access. If we have a presence there, it puts us that much closer to China and puts our assets closer to China and Iran," Poast said.
Poast linked the developments in the US-Pakistan relation to the Trump administration's unapologetic embrace of military primacy, exemplified by its recent executive order renaming the US department of defence as the Department of War.
Poast argued it reflects a policy where "military affairs are a central part of what governments do". This militarised lens, Poast explained, reframes Pakistan not as a diplomatic partner but as a logistical enabler providing the US with a strategic access point for projecting its military power.
"The Trump administration has made it very clear that they're very comfortable with the fact that military affairs are a central part of what governments do. If you start looking at Bagram, the fact that the Trump administration is making these demands to regain the airbase in Afghanistan is because they want to be able to have a military presence towards China."
"I can completely see where the Trump administration is viewing the importance of Pakistan from that frame," he stated.
The professor pointed to Operation Midnight Hammer, the June 22 US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, as a prime example, noting that such an operation was able to take place due to the presence of US bases and US personnel in the countries in those regions.
"Recently, with the attack, the Midnight Hammer that happened a few months ago was enabled by having this type of access, by having US bases, US personnel in other countries, and so forth. Viewed from that framework, the Trump administration has its military policy, then its foreign policy. Then it makes sense why the US would not have Pakistan's military official in the conversation."
"The Trump administration is just much more willing to be open about it and wants military officials here to talk to them directly," Poast said.
His remarks comes at a time when Trump hosted Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir at the Oval Office in Washington.
The Trump administration's aggressive stance against India's purchases of Russian oil marks a stark departure from the Biden era's pragmatic tolerance, potentially jeopardising bilateral trade negotiations and raising questions about Washington's reliability as a partner for New Delhi, according to Poast.
Poast highlighted how then US president Joe Biden's 'realpolitik' approach allowed India flexibility on energy imports as it played a critical role in the Quad alliance, which was formed to counter China's assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region.
"Biden had a realpolitik view of foreign policy... With India, Biden noted that India is doing what it thinks is in its best interest, and moreover, Biden had a lot of knowledge and expertise in foreign policy. That's why he was Obama's vice president. He could say, we're going to tolerate India buying this energy from Russia because we need India in the Quad to be able to balance against China," Poast explained.
According to Poast, this approach sharply contrasts with Donald Trump's uncompromising position, which views these oil imports as direct support for Russia's war machine against Ukraine.
"Trump has long made it a focal point that if Russia is this threat, you don't buy energy from them... This is something that, since the beginning of the war, India has played the key role of, being willing to buy the energy from Russia largely out of their own interests... But I think Trump again has more of this view that no, that is how Russia's thriving and I don't care if you're India, I don't care if you're the European countries, I don't care who you are, if you're buying that, that's not an acceptable policy," Poast added.
Commenting on the ongoing US-India trade negotiations, Poast said it was unlikely that trade deals would move independently of the Russia oil issue, noting that the Trump administration has a history of prioritising optics over substance in trade negotiations.
"I would tend to think that they're going to go in tandem. The two things can't be fully separated... The deals that they (the Trump administration) have reached so far on trade haven't really been trade deals. There have been more framework deals, where they have an agreement on the issues, where they eventually have some provisions for discussions and adjustments."
"Many of these have been more of these framework deals... So I wouldn't be shocked if, after all the dust settles with these negotiations, it's going to be like, there's a new deal which allows Trump to claim there's a deal, but fundamentally, it just caused a lot of consternation or not really much of an outcome in terms of actually changing anything," he said.
He compared the potential India trade deal to recent US agreements with Vietnam, the UK, and the EU, which he described as "more symbolic than transformative". "You could level that with the agreement with Vietnam, the UK, the EU... I think a deal with India is going to be in the same camp, in that it's going to allow Trump to be able to say, okay, we've got this great deal and India is a terrific partner and etc., but it's not going to fundamentally, there's still going to be a lot of questions."
© 2025