“Major Non-NATO Ally” Pakistan would replace its American patron’s regional role in containing Iran while also serving as its proxy for controlling the “Islamic NATO” that’s emerging at the crossroads of Afro-Eurasia.
I suspect we can say the same for Turkiye and Egypt; both need some greenbacks due to their domestic economic situations, without considering geostrategic concerns. Given that the USD still has some appeal, it is logically possible that the US has bought out, or is in the process of buying out, additional regional powers to squeeze Iran. I probably should have added Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Once ambiguities and neutralities are reduced, we will get closer to the big one.
I wish I could say that it's time is running out, but I honestly don't know and wouldn't want to get anyone's hopes up assuming that this new "dark age" in Pakistan will soon end. It's possible that might last for a very, very long time, God forbid.
I might add, that 61 years ago, the British "High Commissioner" (ambassador) in Pakistan, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles met the young Bhutto who was then aged 37 and was the Pakistani Foreign Minister under the Ayub military regime. Sir Sherard wrote at the time in his diary, that the young Bhutto and his manner made an impression upon him leading him to think that "this you g man would end up in getting himself hanged 15 or so years down the line". This turned out to be eerily accurate, but I still wondered as to what caused the good ambassador to react so strongly. Later it became apparent that Sir Sherard was after all a senior member of the British establishment, and he was reacting to Bhutto in the manner that it would have -- towards an "impudent, cocky upstart who needed putting in his place."
Sir Maurice James said that, not Cowper-Coles. I remember speculation in India when Bhutto was hanged that it was at the behest of the CIA. Now I think it was more like to be at the behest of MI5.
BTW, Cowper-Coles once bragged that he influenced the Indian FM with a box of claret.
As for the relations between Britain and the USA -- I regard the latter as the Second British Empire, whatever others may say.
They are used to playing dramas to cloak their evil schemes. One was the American Revolution, and the other was the division of their Raj in 1947 -- which they hyped up around the drama of Islam.
Alex Krainer makes a strong case that the British, especially the City of London control the US via financial and other shenanigans. Matt Ehret says much the same.
I've not read their sources to agree or disagree but I would not be surprised at all that you're right.
Pakistan was not made to allow such people to takeover. The Anglo-American lobby ensures that. Because it was not crafted to be a normal country, other than serving Anglo-UD geopolitical interests. Fifty five years ago, a much more capable, sinister and ambitious politician named Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto tried his hand at taking over Pakistan and becoming it's Napoleon at the helm of his populist party. He ended up dangling at the end of an executioner's rope in 1979, put there by the army chief Gen. Zia.
Imran is an elite playboy celebrity who embodies sexuality and charisma but lacks the other factors needed for a serious political role. Although immensely popular among the youth who see in him what they themselves would like to be, locking him up was not do difficult as he didn't have the skills needed.
These are the two individuals so far who have tried wittingly or unwittingly, to steer Pakistan onto a different path. If Bhutto could be destroyed, dealing with Imran is far easier for the watchdogs of imperialism.
It is telling that Kuwait dusted off and signed this agreement with Pakistan just as Iran was moving tanks to its border, to demonstrate it was serious about invading in response to any US invasion of its own islands...
Very helpful Andrew, along with the comments that follow. Your 'bigger picture' prompts thoughts of Trump's escape from the Persian Gulf in the fog of multinational engagement (and maybe a 'Board of Peace' embraced by Russia and China). Has this been 4-D chess and 'escalation in order to de-escalate'? Possibly. But if so, I cannot believe it originates with Trump.
Andrew, a protector, okay, but against whom? Which country or alliance could possibly justify the Gulf states needing a protector? Iraq? Saddam is dead. Syria? Assad is in Moscow. Israel? They lick its ass. And seriously—do you see Pakistan, a US underdog, attacking the US's boss? Iran? Pakistan won't play that game. Far too dangerous. So then? Against whom would the Gulf despots need protection? Besides, the Gulf states are indefensible. They are incapable of defending themselves against the Houthis. All it would take is to destroy their desalination plants and oil and gas facilities to send them back to their tents. The kings, princes, emirs, and their relatives would prefer to go live in the air-conditioned comfort of their yachts and Western palaces rather than return to the desert. The migrant workers (80% of the population) would go back home. Dubai would look like Detroit on a scorching summer day.
There are many hints that the recent U.S.–Saudi and Saudi–Pakistani agreements—like U.S.–Franco–German ones—involve the shared production or lease of nuclear weapons-related infrastructure. MbS has long stated that the KSA would seek nukes to redress an Iranian one.
Israel has signaled that it would not mind a nuclear-armed KSA provided it joins the Abraham Accords first, making Trump 2.0's recent claims to that end rather worrisome for Iran. Pakistan is rumored to have lent some its nuclear jets to defend the KSA too, in line with longtime secret deals.
...
The Crown Prince almost immediately intervened in Yemen’s civil war in 2015.
He also intensified the regional cold war with Iran. In March 2018, he publicly declared that Saudi Arabia would develop a nuclear bomb if Iran did.
In January 2019, revelations of a missile-making facility in Saudi Arabia served as evidence of a critical first step that Saudi Arabia was seeking nuclear weapons.
“It (a nuclear-armed KSA—ed.) was something that the current government in Israel was willing to contemplate in the context of normalization,” Levite told Newsweek.
But “worst of all,” he stated, was the omission of an Additional Protocol as well as the “Gold Standard,” included in other so-called nuclear 123 Agreements the U.S. has forged with the likes of the United Arab Emirates that commit to international inspections.
“Why would the U.S. agree to the Kingdom’s insistence that they don’t want the Additional Protocol if they have exclusively peaceful intent?” asked Levite.
“What on earth would be the legitimacy of that pushback by Saudi Arabia, other than keeping the nuclear weapons option open?”
The Saudis have always been careful to express their requirement in terms of the threat from Israel rather than their primary fear; that of a nuclear armed Iran.
In a bizarre way, therefore, it also suits Saudi-US relations to portray Saudi Arabia’s concerns in terms of Israel rather than Iran.
A brief insight came to the author in 2010 when he was informed that two nuclear-armed aircraft (probably Mirage IIIs at the time) with Pakistani air and ground crews would be placed at the disposal of the Saudis at moments of crisis.
Various versions of this story have circulated since, including Mark Urban’s fascinating article for the BBC website in November 2013 which broadly rings true.
Asked whether Pakistan would now be obliged to provide Saudi Arabia with a nuclear umbrella, a senior Saudi official told Reuters: "This is a comprehensive defensive agreement that encompasses all military means."
ISLAMABAD, May 18 (Reuters) - Pakistan has deployed 8,000 troops, a squadron of fighter jets and an air defence system to Saudi Arabia under a mutual defence pact, ramping up military cooperation with Riyadh even as Islamabad serves as the main mediator in the Iran war.
I suspect we can say the same for Turkiye and Egypt; both need some greenbacks due to their domestic economic situations, without considering geostrategic concerns. Given that the USD still has some appeal, it is logically possible that the US has bought out, or is in the process of buying out, additional regional powers to squeeze Iran. I probably should have added Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Once ambiguities and neutralities are reduced, we will get closer to the big one.
Correction. The High Commissioner in question was Sir Morrice James.
How many years can US control the Pakistan government before Imran Khan or a colleage regains power?
I wish I could say that it's time is running out, but I honestly don't know and wouldn't want to get anyone's hopes up assuming that this new "dark age" in Pakistan will soon end. It's possible that might last for a very, very long time, God forbid.
I might add, that 61 years ago, the British "High Commissioner" (ambassador) in Pakistan, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles met the young Bhutto who was then aged 37 and was the Pakistani Foreign Minister under the Ayub military regime. Sir Sherard wrote at the time in his diary, that the young Bhutto and his manner made an impression upon him leading him to think that "this you g man would end up in getting himself hanged 15 or so years down the line". This turned out to be eerily accurate, but I still wondered as to what caused the good ambassador to react so strongly. Later it became apparent that Sir Sherard was after all a senior member of the British establishment, and he was reacting to Bhutto in the manner that it would have -- towards an "impudent, cocky upstart who needed putting in his place."
Sir Maurice James said that, not Cowper-Coles. I remember speculation in India when Bhutto was hanged that it was at the behest of the CIA. Now I think it was more like to be at the behest of MI5.
BTW, Cowper-Coles once bragged that he influenced the Indian FM with a box of claret.
https://southasia.com.pk/2020/02/14/born-to-be-hanged/
As for the relations between Britain and the USA -- I regard the latter as the Second British Empire, whatever others may say.
They are used to playing dramas to cloak their evil schemes. One was the American Revolution, and the other was the division of their Raj in 1947 -- which they hyped up around the drama of Islam.
Alex Krainer makes a strong case that the British, especially the City of London control the US via financial and other shenanigans. Matt Ehret says much the same.
I've not read their sources to agree or disagree but I would not be surprised at all that you're right.
Yes yes I made the correction, if you see it carefully.
Their true colours cannot remain hidden.
Indefinitely.
Pakistan was not made to allow such people to takeover. The Anglo-American lobby ensures that. Because it was not crafted to be a normal country, other than serving Anglo-UD geopolitical interests. Fifty five years ago, a much more capable, sinister and ambitious politician named Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto tried his hand at taking over Pakistan and becoming it's Napoleon at the helm of his populist party. He ended up dangling at the end of an executioner's rope in 1979, put there by the army chief Gen. Zia.
Imran is an elite playboy celebrity who embodies sexuality and charisma but lacks the other factors needed for a serious political role. Although immensely popular among the youth who see in him what they themselves would like to be, locking him up was not do difficult as he didn't have the skills needed.
These are the two individuals so far who have tried wittingly or unwittingly, to steer Pakistan onto a different path. If Bhutto could be destroyed, dealing with Imran is far easier for the watchdogs of imperialism.
It is telling that Kuwait dusted off and signed this agreement with Pakistan just as Iran was moving tanks to its border, to demonstrate it was serious about invading in response to any US invasion of its own islands...
Pakstan is strong militarily , the Arabs are of little importance militarily. This is the equation of thaat part of the world.
Very helpful Andrew, along with the comments that follow. Your 'bigger picture' prompts thoughts of Trump's escape from the Persian Gulf in the fog of multinational engagement (and maybe a 'Board of Peace' embraced by Russia and China). Has this been 4-D chess and 'escalation in order to de-escalate'? Possibly. But if so, I cannot believe it originates with Trump.
As i said, Pakistan will get dragged into the war.
Andrew, a protector, okay, but against whom? Which country or alliance could possibly justify the Gulf states needing a protector? Iraq? Saddam is dead. Syria? Assad is in Moscow. Israel? They lick its ass. And seriously—do you see Pakistan, a US underdog, attacking the US's boss? Iran? Pakistan won't play that game. Far too dangerous. So then? Against whom would the Gulf despots need protection? Besides, the Gulf states are indefensible. They are incapable of defending themselves against the Houthis. All it would take is to destroy their desalination plants and oil and gas facilities to send them back to their tents. The kings, princes, emirs, and their relatives would prefer to go live in the air-conditioned comfort of their yachts and Western palaces rather than return to the desert. The migrant workers (80% of the population) would go back home. Dubai would look like Detroit on a scorching summer day.
There are many hints that the recent U.S.–Saudi and Saudi–Pakistani agreements—like U.S.–Franco–German ones—involve the shared production or lease of nuclear weapons-related infrastructure. MbS has long stated that the KSA would seek nukes to redress an Iranian one.
Israel has signaled that it would not mind a nuclear-armed KSA provided it joins the Abraham Accords first, making Trump 2.0's recent claims to that end rather worrisome for Iran. Pakistan is rumored to have lent some its nuclear jets to defend the KSA too, in line with longtime secret deals.
...
The Crown Prince almost immediately intervened in Yemen’s civil war in 2015.
He also intensified the regional cold war with Iran. In March 2018, he publicly declared that Saudi Arabia would develop a nuclear bomb if Iran did.
In January 2019, revelations of a missile-making facility in Saudi Arabia served as evidence of a critical first step that Saudi Arabia was seeking nuclear weapons.
https://theconversation.com/does-saudi-arabia-want-to-develop-nuclear-weapons-heres-what-history-can-tell-us-288418
Trump says Saudi nuclear pact hinges on kingdom joining Abraham Accords
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/7/23/trump-says-saudi-nuclear-pact-hinges-on-kingdom-joining-abraham-accords
“It (a nuclear-armed KSA—ed.) was something that the current government in Israel was willing to contemplate in the context of normalization,” Levite told Newsweek.
But “worst of all,” he stated, was the omission of an Additional Protocol as well as the “Gold Standard,” included in other so-called nuclear 123 Agreements the U.S. has forged with the likes of the United Arab Emirates that commit to international inspections.
“Why would the U.S. agree to the Kingdom’s insistence that they don’t want the Additional Protocol if they have exclusively peaceful intent?” asked Levite.
“What on earth would be the legitimacy of that pushback by Saudi Arabia, other than keeping the nuclear weapons option open?”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-the-only-middle-east-nuclear-weapons-power-fears-us-saudi-deal/ar-AA28tjTl
The Saudis have always been careful to express their requirement in terms of the threat from Israel rather than their primary fear; that of a nuclear armed Iran.
In a bizarre way, therefore, it also suits Saudi-US relations to portray Saudi Arabia’s concerns in terms of Israel rather than Iran.
A brief insight came to the author in 2010 when he was informed that two nuclear-armed aircraft (probably Mirage IIIs at the time) with Pakistani air and ground crews would be placed at the disposal of the Saudis at moments of crisis.
Various versions of this story have circulated since, including Mark Urban’s fascinating article for the BBC website in November 2013 which broadly rings true.
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/saudi-pakistan-nuclear-agreement-same-very-different
Asked whether Pakistan would now be obliged to provide Saudi Arabia with a nuclear umbrella, a senior Saudi official told Reuters: "This is a comprehensive defensive agreement that encompasses all military means."
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/saudi-pact-puts-pakistans-nuclear-umbrella-into-middle-east-security-picture-2025-09-19/
ISLAMABAD, May 18 (Reuters) - Pakistan has deployed 8,000 troops, a squadron of fighter jets and an air defence system to Saudi Arabia under a mutual defence pact, ramping up military cooperation with Riyadh even as Islamabad serves as the main mediator in the Iran war.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/pakistan-deploys-jet-squadron-thousands-troops-saudi-arabia-during-iran-war-2026-05-18/
At last you have spoken in the way you should have, Andrew Korybko. Appreciated!
Pakistan seems to have some world class diplomacy skills.
Interesting analysis good read thank you