There are no permanent friends in international politics—only permanent interests. Pakistan’s history with global powers proves why realism, not emotion, must guide foreign policy decisions.
Optimism and positive thinking are noble human traits. They nurture hope, resilience, and the courage to move forward. However, when optimism becomes detached from ground realities, it turns into a dangerous illusion. Nations, like individuals, suffer when emotions override judgment and wishful thinking replaces strategy. Pakistan’s long and often painful engagement with global power politics offers repeated lessons in this regard—lessons we ignore at our own peril.
Pakistan, the United States, and the Illusion of Friendship
During a visit to Pakistan, renowned American intellectual Noam Chomsky was once asked a question that has haunted Pakistan since its earliest years: How should Pakistan understand its relationship with the United States? Chomsky’s response was striking in its honesty. He stated that the United States has always acted strictly in accordance with its own interests, regardless of who occupies the White House. Where American interests converge, cooperation flows generously; where they diverge, disengagement follows swiftly.
To illustrate his point, Chomsky recalled several historical examples and remarked, with mild sarcasm, that the much-promised US “Enterprise” fleet sent to assist Pakistan had still not arrived. Smiling, he added that Pakistanis are an emotional people—say a few kind words, and they become hopeful. This emotional openness, he suggested, has repeatedly exposed Pakistan to disappointment and betrayal.
I was present during that discussion, and the frankness of an American describing American foreign policy was unsettling—precisely because it was accurate. We often mistake diplomatic warmth for commitment, courtesy for loyalty, and public smiles for strategic guarantees. In international relations, sentiment is not policy.
Faith, History, and the Balance Between Engagement and Caution
Both history and faith caution against naïveté. The Qur’an clearly warns Muslims against assuming unconditional guardianship or loyalty from others. At the same time, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) entered into treaties and diplomatic agreements with non-Muslims based on justice, equality, and mutual obligation. He protected the interests of the Muslim community while engaging pragmatically with others—without illusions.
This balance between principle and realism offers a timeless lesson for statecraft: cooperation without surrender, engagement without emotional dependence.
Afghanistan, Abandonment, and the Cost Paid by Pakistan
Recent history reinforces this lesson painfully. When the United States withdrew abruptly from Afghanistan, it did so with little regard for the consequences faced by neighbouring countries—particularly Pakistan. Massive quantities of advanced military equipment were left behind, including weapons, night-vision devices, communication systems, and heavy arms.
Instead of stabilising the region, these weapons flooded black markets, empowering militant groups and criminal networks. Pakistan, already grappling with security challenges, bore the brunt. Cross-border terrorism surged, arms proliferated in volatile regions, and years of counter-terrorism gains were severely undermined. Once again, America exited when its interests shifted, leaving Pakistan to manage the fallout.
This pattern was later candidly acknowledged by former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who admitted that after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, Washington simply walked away. Pakistan was used as a frontline ally, then abandoned without meaningful assistance for reconstruction or regional stability. The resulting chaos bred extremism that eventually threatened the entire world.
Power Politics, Not Personal Affection
Contemporary American politics further highlights this reality. The current US leadership is known for sharp shifts in tone and policy. Statements made publicly are often contradicted by actions taken quietly. Relations with China, Iran, and even close partners fluctuate according to immediate strategic calculations.
At one point, American leadership appeared displeased with India’s Prime Minister; at another, public warmth returned as strategic interests aligned. In global politics, affection is never personal—it is transactional.
Strength Commands Respect, Not Expectations
The events of May 2025 stand as a sobering reminder for Pakistan. At that critical moment, divine help was with us, and our military leadership remained vigilant. By the grace of Almighty Allah, Pakistan emerged successful. Had circumstances been otherwise, today’s diplomatic posture toward Pakistan might have looked very different.
International respect follows strength, preparedness, and resolve—not appeals, expectations, or emotional attachments.
Pakistan First: The Case for Strategic Independence
The lesson is unmistakable: Pakistan must place Pakistan first. Relations between states are inherently fluid, shaped by interests rather than sentiments. There is nothing immoral about this—it is the essence of global politics. What matters is that Pakistan safeguard its sovereignty, dignity, and national integrity while engaging others on equal terms.
Above all, Pakistan must avoid placing all its eggs in one basket. Over-dependence on any single global power has repeatedly constrained our options and weakened our negotiating position. A diversified foreign policy—rooted in realism, national consensus, and strategic autonomy—is not a luxury; it is a necessity.
Nations are ultimately remembered not for their hopes or emotions, but for the decisions they make. And it is those decisions that determine the direction of their future.
Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal serves as the Director General (Research) at the National Assembly Secretariat, Parliament House, Islamabad. With extensive experience in legislative research and policy analysis.
