THE Zelensky-Trump meeting, held on the last day of February 2025 in the Oval Of-fice, should serve as a wake-up call to all world leaders, especially Pakistan.
Trump’s treatment of Zelensky was humiliating for a visitor to the Oval Office, but that’s how he likes to project himself—a reality show anchor who can show any guest the door.
Trump is not the only US President with a muscular approach; this is standard American policy to pressure non-compliant nations, usually behind closed doors.
Pakistan has often faced such tactics.
In 1976, during a stopover in Islamabad, Henry Kissinger warned Zulfikar Ali Bhutto that refusing to abandon the French plutonium reprocessing plant would make Pakistan a “horrible example.
” Despite such threats, no national leader has ever compromised on nuclear deterrence, the corner-stone of Pakistan’s security policy.
These instances highlight America’s coercive diplomacy and Pakistan’s resilience in safeguarding its strategic interests.
On July 4, 1999, President Clinton met Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif—an opportunity for Clinton to restore political legitimacy amid the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Sharif sought US help to end the Kargil conflict but instead faced a hostile reception.
Clinton ordered him to withdraw troops behind the Line of Control and treat it as sacrosanct.
To his dismay, Sharif was left with no choice but compliance.
Later, he blamed the military leadership for placing him in a difficult position, highlight-ing the political and strategic challenges Pakistan faced in navigating its relations with the US during the crisis.
The day after 9/11, DG ISI Lt.Gen.Mahmood Ahmed, visiting the US, was summoned by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and asked if Pakistan was “with them or against them.
” He later claimed he was threatened with being bombed into the Stone Age.
Secretary of State Gen.Colin Powell reinforced the ultimatum in a call to President Musharraf, followed by seven US demands, all of which Musharraf unconditionally accepted.
As the War on Terror stalled, the Bush and Obama ad-ministrations repeatedly blamed Pakistan, pressuring it to “do more,” underscoring the relentless US demands in its counter-terrorism policies.
In his first term, Trump often conducted foreign policy via Twitter, targeting Pakistan among others.
At 4 a.m. on January 1, 2018, he accused Pakistan of taking $33 billion in aid while offering “lies & deceit,” leaving its government scrambling for a response.
However, he later extended a red-carpet welcome to Imran Khan at the White House, seeking Pakistan’s assistance in negotiating a settlement with the Taliban to end the prolonged Afghan war.
This shift highlighted Trump’s transactional approach, where his initial hostility gave way to pragmatism when US strategic interests required Pakistan’s cooperation.
It is only fools who do not learn from history.
Now that most of the world is reeling from Trump’s imperious behaviour, Pakistani leadership should wargame all possible responses.
Civil and military policy planners should put their heads together and craft a joint strategy to handle any angry outbursts that could be forthcoming.
Multiple scenarios can unfold, such as Trump repeating his New Year tweet demanding that Pakistan return all the aid it received to fight their War on Terror.
He could also ask Pakistan to recognize Israel, or else he would tell the IMF to stop the bailout program.
He may also pressure Pakistan to give up its principled stance on Kashmir, arguing that it is leading nowhere and is causing “terrorism” in Indian-occupied territory.
In bilateral relations with the US, whether it is Donald Trump or anyone else, Pakistan will always be confronted with hard choices.
Some areas that can still be explored include counter-terrorism operations.
For example, despite Trump’s freeze on all foreign aid, $397 million has been released for a US-backed program to monitor the use of F-16 fighter jets from Pakistani bases to ensure they are employed only for counter-terrorism operations and not against rival India.
In his first address to Congress, Trump also thanked the Government of Pakistan for handing over the Abbey Gate attacker, Sharifullah, to the US Government.
Trump may also want Pakistan’s help retrieving the armament worth $7 billion that US-led NATO forces left behind in Afghanistan during their hasty exit in August 2021.
This will be a tough sell because the Taliban government rarely listens to Pakistan.
During their first regime, Taliban leader Mullah Omar refused to entertain Pakistan’s entreaties and went ahead with rocketing the ancient Buddha statues in Bamiyan.
Pakistan should seriously consider its strengths and weaknesses.
At the moment, the deck is heavily stacked against it, both on the external and internal fronts.
How-ever, history provides examples of nations that have pulled themselves out of positions of utter weakness.
During the Second World War, Charles de Gaulle, operating from his exile in England, was able to rally his nation together and liberate France.
An honest and sincere leadership can always guide and lead a nation out of a desperate situation.
—The author is a retired brigadier and former professor.(tyamin57@hotmail.com)
