In a stark and unequivocal assessment, a former senior Pentagon official has called for the United States to fundamentally recalibrate its policy towards Pakistan, arguing there is no strategic logic for Washington to continue its embrace of Islamabad. Instead, he advocates for the US to take the significant step of designating Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.
The Core Argument: A Failed Strategic Partnership
The call comes from Michael Rubin, a former official in the US Department of Defense and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Rubin's analysis, presented during a recent congressional hearing, pulls no punches. He contends that decades of American financial and military aid to Pakistan, amounting to tens of billions of dollars, have failed to yield a reliable strategic partner. Instead, he asserts, Pakistan has consistently played a double game, receiving US counterterrorism funds while providing sanctuary and support to militant groups that target American interests and regional stability, particularly in Afghanistan and India.
Rubin pointedly stated that the rationale for the US-Pakistan alliance, which was largely built during the Cold War and later intensified during the post-9/11 War on Terror, has evaporated. With the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, he argues, the primary transactional reason for tolerating Pakistan's duplicity has disappeared. "There is simply no strategic logic for the United States to embrace Pakistan," Rubin emphasized, framing the relationship as a net liability for American security objectives.
The Proposed Action: Designating Pakistan as a State Sponsor of Terror
The most consequential recommendation put forward by the former Pentagon official is for the US government to formally designate Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism. This designation is a powerful diplomatic and economic tool used by the US State Department against nations that have "repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism." Currently, only four countries are on this list: Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Cuba.
If implemented, this designation would trigger severe automatic sanctions, including:
- Restrictions on US foreign assistance.
- A ban on defense exports and sales.
- Controls over exports of dual-use items.
- Various financial and other restrictions.
Rubin bases this severe recommendation on Pakistan's long-alleged support for groups like the Taliban, Haqqani Network, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). He argues that such support is not the work of "rogue elements" within Pakistan's security establishment but is a matter of state policy. This designation, he believes, is the necessary step to hold Pakistan accountable for actions that undermine regional security and threaten US allies, notably India.
Broader Implications and the India Factor
This recommendation does not exist in a vacuum. It comes at a time when the United States is actively deepening its strategic partnership with India, viewed as a crucial counterbalance to China in the Indo-Pacific. Rubin's argument implicitly aligns with this strategic pivot. By suggesting a harsh stance on Pakistan, he is advocating for a US foreign policy that fully prioritizes its relationship with a democratic, growing India over a problematic partnership with Pakistan.
The hearing and Rubin's testimony reflect a growing impatience within certain Washington policy circles regarding Pakistan. The sentiment marks a significant shift from the post-9/11 era when Pakistan was considered a "frontline ally." The enduring tensions between India and Pakistan, frequently fueled by cross-border terrorism, are increasingly seen through a lens that is more sympathetic to India's security concerns, partly due to the broader US-China rivalry.
While the Biden administration has not indicated any move toward such a drastic designation, the public airing of this option by a respected former official and analyst signals a hardening of discourse. It places additional pressure on Islamabad to demonstrate irreversible action against all terrorist groups on its soil if it wishes to repair its standing in Washington. For India, such arguments from influential US voices are likely to be seen as a validation of its long-held position on Pakistan-sponsored terrorism.
The final decision rests with the US Secretary of State, and such a move would have profound geopolitical repercussions. However, the very fact that it is being seriously proposed in a formal congressional setting underscores the dramatic decline in Pakistan's image in the US strategic community and the rising premium on the US-India partnership.
