Situationer: Army chief walks Iran tightrope at White House
• India-Pakistan standoff, cryptocurrency, rare minerals, prospects of cooperation on AI discussed, says ISPR
• FO condemns Israeli aggression against Iran, expresses indignation over attacks on nuclear sites
JUNE 18th was an extraordinary day at the White House; never before had an American president hosted a Pakistani chief of army staff in an exclusive, high-level setting. Despite decades of military cooperation between the two nations, the optics of this meeting were without precedent.
The backdrop of the meeting — a rapidly escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, one that is increasingly threatening to spill into a broader regional war — made the confab even more intriguing as President Donald Trump welcomed Field Marshal Asim Munir for a closed-door luncheon in the Cabinet Room.
Notably absent were any Pakistani civilian officials. No ambassador, no foreign minister — only the army chief and Pakistan’s top intelligence officer, Lt Gen Asim Malik, who also serves as national security adviser.
On the American side, Trump was flanked by Secretary of State Senator Marco Rubio and Special Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs Steve Witkoff.
The select list of attendees underscored the strategic weight assigned to the meeting by both sides.
Despite the intrigue and symbolism, sources told Dawn the meeting was exploratory rather than definitive.
“Although initially scheduled for one hour, the meeting extended for over two hours, underscoring the depth and cordiality of the dialogue,” said the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the military’s media wing, in a statement signalling rare openness and engagement between the parties.
A wide range of issues reportedly came up during the discussion, including Pakistan’s recent standoff with India, as well as Islamabad’s interest in cryptocurrency, offer of rare minerals and prospects of cooperating on artificial intelligence.
But ISPR noted that “a detailed exchange of views also took place on the prevailing tensions between Iran and Israel,” adding that both sides “emphasized the importance of resolution of the conflict.”
Trump himself echoed the idea that Pakistan had something meaningful to contribute — particularly in understanding Iran.
However, according to sources on both sides, the conversation was less about commitments and more about testing the waters.
Backing for Iran?
The day after the meeting, Foreign Office reiterated its official stance on the Iran-Israel war, offering further clarity.
FO Spokesman Shafqat Ali Khan stated: “We condemn what Israel is doing in Iran. It is in violation of all rules of civilized behaviour, interstate relation, international law, and international humanitarian law.”
He went further: “Our support to Iran is fundamental to our position. It is unequivocal and unambiguous… This is inconceivable for any Pakistani or the government for that matter on the Israeli side.”
Yet, when pressed on whether Pakistan might assist Iran militarily, Mr Khan demurred: “Any role to play at this point is speculative… we have not received any specific request for military support from Iran.”
Pakistan’s response, in essence, is not simply about declining to back Iran militarily — it is a reflection of the country’s longstanding balancing act. Morally aligned with Tehran, diplomatically committed to de-escalation, and militarily noncommittal, Islamabad is navigating tricky waters.
This balancing act is informed by Pakistan’s own experience with conflict, particularly its volatile relationship with India and the ever-present spectre of nuclear confrontation. Just last month, the two neighbours nearly edged into open conflict following an attack in Pahalgam.
The FO spokesperson also condemned Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear installations: “It is a clear violation of international law to attack nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. And we condemn it.”
This line hints at Islamabad’s deepest concern — the setting of a precedent. If one state can bomb another’s nuclear sites with impunity, the norms of global security begin to unravel, which is a harrowing thought for Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state located next door to a similarly armed rival.
In a statement issued Thursday, ISPR declared: “US-Pakistan relations have achieved in the last three days, what India could not achieve in three decades.” This reflects the military’s view of the meeting as a validation of its role as Pakistan’s principal interlocutor on security.
ISPR further asserted that the meeting signalled a shift in US foreign policy, with Pakistan now being accorded “strategic priority.”
But the scene at the Cabinet Room — Trump seated across from Pakistani generals, while Pakistan’s political leadership remained invisible was unsettling in many ways.
“Any foreign government seeking alliance/support from a democracy normally deals with civilian leadership!” former federal minister Dr Shireen Mazari observed. “But Pakistan sends a different message now!”
‘No free lunches’
In New Delhi, too, the meeting set off alarms. Analysts described it as a setback for US-India relations. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s quiet rejection of a parallel White House invitation, citing “scheduling conflicts”, only added fuel to speculation of a stressed US-India axis amid a pivotal global realignment.
For Trump, however, the Munir luncheon was strategic. With Israel pushing for US involvement against Iranian nuclear facilities and American forces quietly repositioning in the Gulf, Trump appeared to be seeking a partner with proximity and intelligence depth. In his eyes, Pakistan fit the bill.
“They know Iran very well, better than most,” Trump told reporters, hinting at some convergence of views. “He (Munir) agreed with me,” he added. “They are not happy about anything (relating to happenings in Iran). It is not that they are bad with Israel.”
What that agreement entailed – Iran’s nuclear aspirations, the Israeli strikes, or broader regional chaos- remains unclear. Perhaps deliberate ambiguity was the objective.
For Pakistan, that very ambiguity may serve as a shield. By signaling moral solidarity with Iran while withholding military commitments, Islamabad hopes to maintain room to manoeuvre, avoiding American frustration and Iranian suspicion alike. Its decision to abstain from the recent IAEA vote censuring Iran reflects that tightrope walk.
But one truth lingers. “There are no free lunches. Especially not the ones hosted in the White House,” said Dr Adil Sultan, dean at Islamabad’s Air University. “We should brace to become a frontline state once again.”
Published in Dawn, June 20th, 2025