The timing of this rumor is odd, given that Pakistan is struggling to contain protests in Kashmir and Baluchistan. It also seems to blame Pakistan (and China) almost more than it does Iran.
At the same time, Ukraine (=the EU) snubs Trump on Iran, refuses to make peace with Russia, and ignores U.S. advice re: attacks on non-Russian shipping. At least this is its PR.
Pakistan is trying to help Trump, however halfheartedly at times. Could this Reuters report be yet another "deep-state" effort to sabotage *anything* Trump favors?
I don't think Pakistan is trying to help Trump. It makes the appearance of, but it is not real. It is just that US state department is enamored with Muslims. So the USA, silly as they are pursue friendly relations with Pakistan and Turkey for lack of alternatives.
I don't think the US state is "enamoured of Muslims," especially in the case of Pakistan.
The problem goes back to 1947 when the unelected unelectable first PM of India rebuffed the US not once but many times.
The biggest mistake he made was to decline the US offer of the UNSC seat which was then held by China, after the takeover by Maoists.
This made the US turn to Pakistan as a counterweight to communist China.
At that time, Nehru's slogan was "Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai" which translates to "Indians and Chinese are brothers." This continued until 1962 when the Chinese occupied parts of Ladakh and threatened to overrun the entire state. Then he turned with a begging bowl to Kennedy for arms.
Indian policy continued for decades to be confused, sorry "non-aligned."
Thank you! It's exactly those pieces that are not taught in school, lol. Yep, it kind of makes my view of India Congress Party even darker that it was. What with Mahatma Ghandi's acquiescence to Holocaust. An amoral man.
You seem to overlook the fact that Nehru's Pakistan policy—notably in 1947–53—largely aligned with both China's and the Anglo-Americans'. Cold-War tensions did not hinder all four powers' pro-Pakistan agreement.
The West, Nehru's India, and Red China were then of one mind on Pakistan's territorial claims. The British consistently favored a strong Pakistan as a form of strategic depth vis-à-vis Soviet influence in Afghanistan (yet Soviet ally China did not mind).
The problem with the U.S. stance, if viewed from a Cold-War vantage, is that Nehru himself, while refusing to abandon benevolent neutrality toward China, refused to defend Kashmir from British-backed Pakistani invasions (notably at Poonch and Gilgit).
His approach dovetailed 100% with China and the Anglo-Saxons' Pakistan tilt. His stances on Pakistan, the Sino–Soviet bloc, and economics were at odds with Patel's, who had more of a following in Nehru's own party than the latter.
I do think a tendency existed on the part of the West to view Pakistani Islamism as more of an anticommunist bulwark than it actually was, while sidelining genuinely anticommunist, popular Indian nationalists like Patel.
Paradoxically, the West ended up favoring socialist–Islamist-friendly Congress "allies" (the Gandhi–Nehru duo), perhaps because these were so eager to placate the West's favored Pakistani clients.
I think Congress was more pro-Western than "pro-Muslim". The West favored partition precisely to create a Muslim counterweight to local nationalism (disingenuously derided as Soviet-inspired). Congress was just following the British lead at the behest of the CIA.
As I said, the British in particular staffed the Pakistani armed forces and rewarded British nationals who aided Pakistan-backed invasions of Kashmir in 1947. Congress acceded to British wishes by refusing to defend Indian interests in Kashmir (at least the areas awarded Pakistan).
Both Turkey and Pakistan have often relied on their military-intelligence agencies to quash dissent; Atatürk and his successors, like the Shah, were able to suppress a conservative Muslim majority before Islamists (AKP) took over.
The Pakistani ISI has controlled Islamism as much as it has nursed it. No anti-state revolt to date has won. I think both Turkey and Pakistan are perfectly able to cow their subjects; they just lack the will to do so as of now.
Yep, sure. But their super-sensitive Muslim electorate gives them the excuse they can use versus the stupid Yanks. Anyway, a lot of the jobs in State Department for the Mid-East and South Asia desks are now occupied by Muslims.
" Pakistan is seeking a multibillion-dollar bailout from the US, which recontextualized its US-Iranian mediation efforts as a bid to obtain the aforesaid... "
China could be that creditor...
but Beijing won't do it, presumably to avoid upsetting India or the United States.
China has thrown tens of billions of dollars into Pakistan and received barely anything in return so I very much doubt that it'll agree to bail Pakistan out over and over again.
It will - China sees India as its main challenger (maybe more than the USA). So anything to aggravate India is OK. In a nutshell, that's the problem of China - it has a totally skewed foreign policy assessment.
It's the same as with China's relations with Israel. No-one in Global South cares about them, because China is the money alternative to USA&IMF. But then, China chose to fund all the internet propaganda against the Jewish state in the West. At some point, people start responding...
We haven't seen that, though, it's been the IMF, the US, and the Gulf that bailed Pakistan out before, with China only rolling over some loans every once in a while.
The precedent of China bailing anyone out could lead to a chain reaction of other top BRI partners requesting the same on pain of curtailing BRI projects, etc.
Another thing to consider is that Pakistani support for ISIS-K and other Islamist proxies in Afghanistan dovetails with U.S. designs on Afghan mineral assets such as rare earths (the aim of which is to counter Chinese mining projects).
China's domestic opinions, if those opinions count, are against Pakistan at the moment. China needs an infusion of foreign exchange badly, if for nothing else, then for buying gold for the country and capital looting for the super-rich and the powerful, so they can continue their capital flight.
Five years ago, yes. Certainly not now. But seriously, given the current circumstances of China, if there is any deployable foreign exchange, China WILL find a way to "use" it abroad. Of course, the bulk will flow to tax shelters in shell companies.
friend=enemy? below from Howard Zhang's topical recent 'stack entry
...............................
As one Singapore-based analyst put it to Al Jazeera, China is “trying to be a peacemaker without underwriting the peace process,” because the Middle East, however lucrative the oil trade, isn’t a core interest worth spending real political capital on.
That posture is the public product. It’s what lets a Zhejiang academic tell Al Jazeera, without apparent irony, that “all those countries are our friends, even if they are enemies”: Iran, Israel, the Gulf states and the US, all at once.
..............................
Bit of a language barrier I think operative, but still. Is this what you intend by "skewed" tho'?
"Bilateral trade volumes expanded dramatically, from just US$50 million in 1992 to around US$15 billion by 2020, and to roughly US$24-25 billion by 2022, making China Israel’s largest trading partner in Asia, and one of its top three globally.
Despite the war, many Chinese construction workers remained in Israel, with new groups even arriving in 2025 to keep projects running.
Likewise, a steady inflow of Chinese goods, from consumer products to electric vehicles, helped cushion the impact of wartime inflation, indicating that political rifts have not yet translated into a rejection of economic ties with China."
Based on these data, anti-Zionist figures such as Neville Roy Singham clearly do not represent all CCP factions, the PRC leadership, or even Chinese elites as a whole.
I have no idea whether any of this is true or not, but anything that puts the corrupt and repressive Pakistani government in a pickle can't be all bad.
The number - 400 - makes this suspicious. Sounds big in a news report, but actually far too few to be militarily significant. It would certainly not need the assistance of a government to transport to Iran. Probably, this is a disinformation operation designed to disrupt relations.
I consistently read your comments and articles, but I detest your use of capital letters for every word in your titles! It is graphically unattractive and detracts from both the meaning and interpretation of the title. Please let the words convey their importance rather than forcing emphasis through unnecessary capitalisation.
Today, even very high flying US or Israel jets don't dare flying over the Iranian territory. And an manpad can't nothing against a plane flying at 12000m.
ManPad, it's only against helicopter and ground-attack planes like A10.
I had an impression of an older report at the beginning of the recent conflict that China promised 8000 MPADS to Iran. These are relatively low-tech in today's standards and likely NOT the best MPADS all around. However, China has the capacity to manufacture them fast to replace its stockpile. I know the A-10 has an armored cockpit to resist a 30mm cannon, but its engines are not armored to resist any MPADS. The attackers have to fly high and use stand-off weapons to avoid these MPADS.
Pakistan is a complicated country. It kinds of reminds me of Sweden and Switzerland during WW2. On the one hand, they happily supplied Germany with munitions in return for gold that Germany robbed from you know whom.
On the other side, USA happily maintained diplomatic relations (and more) with both. As a thank you for them not sending their armies with the Germans to the Eastern front. If the US tolerates targetting data being passed to Iran (the USA does the same with Ukraine), it will probably tolerate manpads too.
The timing of this rumor is odd, given that Pakistan is struggling to contain protests in Kashmir and Baluchistan. It also seems to blame Pakistan (and China) almost more than it does Iran.
At the same time, Ukraine (=the EU) snubs Trump on Iran, refuses to make peace with Russia, and ignores U.S. advice re: attacks on non-Russian shipping. At least this is its PR.
Pakistan is trying to help Trump, however halfheartedly at times. Could this Reuters report be yet another "deep-state" effort to sabotage *anything* Trump favors?
Or is there more to it?
I don't think Pakistan is trying to help Trump. It makes the appearance of, but it is not real. It is just that US state department is enamored with Muslims. So the USA, silly as they are pursue friendly relations with Pakistan and Turkey for lack of alternatives.
I don't think the US state is "enamoured of Muslims," especially in the case of Pakistan.
The problem goes back to 1947 when the unelected unelectable first PM of India rebuffed the US not once but many times.
The biggest mistake he made was to decline the US offer of the UNSC seat which was then held by China, after the takeover by Maoists.
This made the US turn to Pakistan as a counterweight to communist China.
At that time, Nehru's slogan was "Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai" which translates to "Indians and Chinese are brothers." This continued until 1962 when the Chinese occupied parts of Ladakh and threatened to overrun the entire state. Then he turned with a begging bowl to Kennedy for arms.
Indian policy continued for decades to be confused, sorry "non-aligned."
Thank you! It's exactly those pieces that are not taught in school, lol. Yep, it kind of makes my view of India Congress Party even darker that it was. What with Mahatma Ghandi's acquiescence to Holocaust. An amoral man.
You seem to overlook the fact that Nehru's Pakistan policy—notably in 1947–53—largely aligned with both China's and the Anglo-Americans'. Cold-War tensions did not hinder all four powers' pro-Pakistan agreement.
The West, Nehru's India, and Red China were then of one mind on Pakistan's territorial claims. The British consistently favored a strong Pakistan as a form of strategic depth vis-à-vis Soviet influence in Afghanistan (yet Soviet ally China did not mind).
The problem with the U.S. stance, if viewed from a Cold-War vantage, is that Nehru himself, while refusing to abandon benevolent neutrality toward China, refused to defend Kashmir from British-backed Pakistani invasions (notably at Poonch and Gilgit).
His approach dovetailed 100% with China and the Anglo-Saxons' Pakistan tilt. His stances on Pakistan, the Sino–Soviet bloc, and economics were at odds with Patel's, who had more of a following in Nehru's own party than the latter.
I do think a tendency existed on the part of the West to view Pakistani Islamism as more of an anticommunist bulwark than it actually was, while sidelining genuinely anticommunist, popular Indian nationalists like Patel.
Paradoxically, the West ended up favoring socialist–Islamist-friendly Congress "allies" (the Gandhi–Nehru duo), perhaps because these were so eager to placate the West's favored Pakistani clients.
Congress was always pro-Muslim. They had the dream, if they are enough pro-Muslim, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis will reunite with them.
I think Congress was more pro-Western than "pro-Muslim". The West favored partition precisely to create a Muslim counterweight to local nationalism (disingenuously derided as Soviet-inspired). Congress was just following the British lead at the behest of the CIA.
As I said, the British in particular staffed the Pakistani armed forces and rewarded British nationals who aided Pakistan-backed invasions of Kashmir in 1947. Congress acceded to British wishes by refusing to defend Indian interests in Kashmir (at least the areas awarded Pakistan).
In your view, why has Trump not pressed Turkey or Pakistan to attack Iran?
They say they are democratically elected governments, and their electorate would not tolerate this. Muslim solidarity and what not.
Both Turkey and Pakistan have often relied on their military-intelligence agencies to quash dissent; Atatürk and his successors, like the Shah, were able to suppress a conservative Muslim majority before Islamists (AKP) took over.
The Pakistani ISI has controlled Islamism as much as it has nursed it. No anti-state revolt to date has won. I think both Turkey and Pakistan are perfectly able to cow their subjects; they just lack the will to do so as of now.
Yep, sure. But their super-sensitive Muslim electorate gives them the excuse they can use versus the stupid Yanks. Anyway, a lot of the jobs in State Department for the Mid-East and South Asia desks are now occupied by Muslims.
Why did Trump not remove those officials and instead revert to the bipartisan pro-Islamist (petrodollar) consensus?
" Pakistan is seeking a multibillion-dollar bailout from the US, which recontextualized its US-Iranian mediation efforts as a bid to obtain the aforesaid... "
China could be that creditor...
but Beijing won't do it, presumably to avoid upsetting India or the United States.
Realpolitik is frustrating. :)
China has thrown tens of billions of dollars into Pakistan and received barely anything in return so I very much doubt that it'll agree to bail Pakistan out over and over again.
It will - China sees India as its main challenger (maybe more than the USA). So anything to aggravate India is OK. In a nutshell, that's the problem of China - it has a totally skewed foreign policy assessment.
It's the same as with China's relations with Israel. No-one in Global South cares about them, because China is the money alternative to USA&IMF. But then, China chose to fund all the internet propaganda against the Jewish state in the West. At some point, people start responding...
We haven't seen that, though, it's been the IMF, the US, and the Gulf that bailed Pakistan out before, with China only rolling over some loans every once in a while.
The precedent of China bailing anyone out could lead to a chain reaction of other top BRI partners requesting the same on pain of curtailing BRI projects, etc.
Another thing to consider is that Pakistani support for ISIS-K and other Islamist proxies in Afghanistan dovetails with U.S. designs on Afghan mineral assets such as rare earths (the aim of which is to counter Chinese mining projects).
China's domestic opinions, if those opinions count, are against Pakistan at the moment. China needs an infusion of foreign exchange badly, if for nothing else, then for buying gold for the country and capital looting for the super-rich and the powerful, so they can continue their capital flight.
China needs forex? Or Pakistan?
Five years ago, yes. Certainly not now. But seriously, given the current circumstances of China, if there is any deployable foreign exchange, China WILL find a way to "use" it abroad. Of course, the bulk will flow to tax shelters in shell companies.
friend=enemy? below from Howard Zhang's topical recent 'stack entry
...............................
As one Singapore-based analyst put it to Al Jazeera, China is “trying to be a peacemaker without underwriting the peace process,” because the Middle East, however lucrative the oil trade, isn’t a core interest worth spending real political capital on.
That posture is the public product. It’s what lets a Zhejiang academic tell Al Jazeera, without apparent irony, that “all those countries are our friends, even if they are enemies”: Iran, Israel, the Gulf states and the US, all at once.
..............................
Bit of a language barrier I think operative, but still. Is this what you intend by "skewed" tho'?
"Bilateral trade volumes expanded dramatically, from just US$50 million in 1992 to around US$15 billion by 2020, and to roughly US$24-25 billion by 2022, making China Israel’s largest trading partner in Asia, and one of its top three globally.
Despite the war, many Chinese construction workers remained in Israel, with new groups even arriving in 2025 to keep projects running.
Likewise, a steady inflow of Chinese goods, from consumer products to electric vehicles, helped cushion the impact of wartime inflation, indicating that political rifts have not yet translated into a rejection of economic ties with China."
https://mei.nus.edu.sg/publication/china-israel-economic-cooperation-still-important-for-both-sides/
Based on these data, anti-Zionist figures such as Neville Roy Singham clearly do not represent all CCP factions, the PRC leadership, or even Chinese elites as a whole.
Thank you very much for sharing!
I have no idea whether any of this is true or not, but anything that puts the corrupt and repressive Pakistani government in a pickle can't be all bad.
The number - 400 - makes this suspicious. Sounds big in a news report, but actually far too few to be militarily significant. It would certainly not need the assistance of a government to transport to Iran. Probably, this is a disinformation operation designed to disrupt relations.
If China gives Iran launchers, then Pakistan puts a tracker on the shipment, and then the US blows it up in Iran...everyone gets their win.
China needs to look like they are doing something.
Pakistan needs to look good and save face with China, but can do the opposite secretly and tell the US.
Iran -- well they may or may not suspect anything, but given their isolation they'll probably not say anything regardless.
I consistently read your comments and articles, but I detest your use of capital letters for every word in your titles! It is graphically unattractive and detracts from both the meaning and interpretation of the title. Please let the words convey their importance rather than forcing emphasis through unnecessary capitalisation.
Manpad? It's surprising.
Today, even very high flying US or Israel jets don't dare flying over the Iranian territory. And an manpad can't nothing against a plane flying at 12000m.
ManPad, it's only against helicopter and ground-attack planes like A10.
Do the Iranians wait for a ground attack?
Shooting down a terrain-hugging Tomahawk missile with a MANPADS is theoretically possible, but — I assume — extremely difficult.
Pakistan will get dragged into the War On Iran.
I had an impression of an older report at the beginning of the recent conflict that China promised 8000 MPADS to Iran. These are relatively low-tech in today's standards and likely NOT the best MPADS all around. However, China has the capacity to manufacture them fast to replace its stockpile. I know the A-10 has an armored cockpit to resist a 30mm cannon, but its engines are not armored to resist any MPADS. The attackers have to fly high and use stand-off weapons to avoid these MPADS.
Pakistan is a complicated country. It kinds of reminds me of Sweden and Switzerland during WW2. On the one hand, they happily supplied Germany with munitions in return for gold that Germany robbed from you know whom.
On the other side, USA happily maintained diplomatic relations (and more) with both. As a thank you for them not sending their armies with the Germans to the Eastern front. If the US tolerates targetting data being passed to Iran (the USA does the same with Ukraine), it will probably tolerate manpads too.
Pakistan isn't complicated at all: they will support anyone if their army gets money and it appears to hurt India. I call them the Ukraine of Asia.