By: Shreya Dabral, Research Analyst, GSDN

Turkey is considered as a strong nation when we hear about global geopolitics. Well, the significance arises from the nation’s location that forms the bridges between Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Turkey possesses a strong control on Bosporus and Dardanelles Straits that create a link between the Black Sea with the Mediterranean Sea on to the warm waters of the Atlantic Ocean.

Turkey is being governed under the Montreux Convention (1936) and it continues to regulate the passage of civilian and the military vessels, providing a strong impact over the naval access to and from the Black Sea. The control over the two straits is considered necessary for regional and global maritime trade and also for maintaining tight securities.

Turkey is Russia’s second huge trading partner, Ankara is reportedly known to continue relying on Russian gas and banking networks, clearly making it a US$ 60 billion in trade with Moscow annually. Turkey has been seen improving its relationships with Russia since 1995 when the former nation stopped supporting the Kurdish Workers Party that simultaneously made Turkey stop supporting Chechen rebels. Turkey has expressed criticism over Russia’s plan to establish the military bases in Syria, particularly in Tartus and Khmeimim. Moreover, Turkey still continues to control the airspace in the northern parts of Syria, it still retains the strategic upper hand to limit Russian’s access in the region.

Guardians of the Black Sea and the Bride of the Sea.

Turkey possesses the longest stretch of coastline along the Black Sea among all bordering nations and maintains one of the region’s most advanced and capable naval forces. Its location allows Turkey to position itself in the whole Black Sea region, the Caucasus, the Balkans and the eastern Mediterranean. Being a country in possession of a coastline but also a capable navy (one of the only capable navies in the region), they will act as one of the key regional actors in deterring Russian expansion while also being a party to the West.

Turkey is a founding member of NATO’s southern flank and it hosts key military infrastructure with NATO as it also hosts air domination assets and can also provide and provide assessment – the Turkish military is NATO’s second-largest in terms of troop strength. Turkey has been an important regional alliance in intelligence collection and sharing, counter-terrorism operations and stabilization operations.

Blending East and West

Turkey’s foreign policy has taken on one of the most unique activities of any state, and that has been hedging alliances between the West and non-Western states. Turkey is a NATO Ally and is trying to become a member of the European Union, and has continued military cooperation with the West against traditional enemies. However, Turkey has also established strategic relationships with non-Western states like Russia, Iran, and China.   The drive to balance the United States and NATO, on the one hand, and the East on the other, is demonstrated in Turkey’s arms procurements where Turkey acquired Russian S-400 missile defense systems. This procurement was a bold step and increased tension with Washington while at the same time displaying Turkey’s desire to assert its right to maintain sovereign defense choices. Turkey’s commitment to both the Western military coalitions and the East allowed it emerge in previous years as a middle power state in the diplomatic world capable of playing multiple roles and loitering across different diplomatic spaces.

Turkey has been increasingly engaged as a regional peacemaker.

 Turkey has brought parties to the table in discussions between Russia and Ukraine over the last couple of years, held a number of talks at the leadership level, and agreed on most notably, what would happen with grain exported from Ukraine through the Black Sea. All these are significant actions that contributed to prevention of food shortages in the world, especially in the developing world that relies heavily on Ukrainian food products.

With regards to the Syrian civil war, Turkey comprised a host of multiple roles – as a military actor, space for hosting refugees, diplomatic mediation role and humanitarian response. Turkey has done military operations in Syria to eliminate threats to its own borders; it has also held peace negotiations between warring factions in Syria. Turkey’s engagement has included similar mediation roles in the conflicts arising from Libya, the South Caucasus, the Gulf.

Turkey’s actions in these areas have elevated its profile in the international arena, and done so while acting as an independent actor with its own regional objectives.

Energy Transit Centre of the Region

Turkey has become an energy corridor linking producers to the Middle East, Central Asia, and Russia, to European consumers. Pipelines such as the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP) and the Southern Gas Corridor traverse Turkish territory, providing Europe energy alternatives that are not Russian.

Moreover, Turkey serves as the end point for several oil and gas pipelines from Azerbaijan, Iraq, and Iran. Turkey is also a central point for liquified natural gas (LNG) terminals and future hydrogen transmission routes. With Europe pursing diversifying away from Russian energy, Turkey’s capacity to be a stable transit country becomes particularly salient.

In addition to transit, Turkey is investing in domestic energy supplies such as nuclear and renewables, and with international partnerships Turkey is able to develop its capacity and resiliency to energy infrastructure.

Economic Power and Regional Influence

Turkey is one of the top 20 economies globally but has seen ups and downs in its economic growth. Turkey still remains a global trade participant, representing both developed and emerging economies.

Turkey’s economy has engaged with countries in a wide spectrum; from engagements with the European Union and Gulf states to economic deals with China and Russia. Turkey has also deepened ties with African states through infrastructure projects, trade missions, and defense agreements. This economic diplomacy advances its geopolitical objectives and, in its effort, to expand its sphere of influence.

Relative to some of the challenges Turkey has faced in recent years, for example, inflation rates, currency devaluation and external debt, Turkey articulates its role as a bridge linking East and West; through providing investment opportunities, transport connectivity and manufacturing opportunities.

Military Strength and Technological Development

Turkey’s defense and domestic defense industry are undergoing a serious modernization effort, and is now situated as one of the few countries in the world designing and manufacturing sophisticated drones, warships, and missile systems with combat experience.  Turkish-made drones were used extensively and effectively in each conflict in Syria, Libya, and Ukraine.

The development of indigenous defense technology will increase Turkey’s strategic autonomy and reduce reliance on foreign suppliers. Furthermore, it enables Ankara to engage in defense diplomacy through arms exports and exports to strengthen its relationships with allies and partners throughout Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East.

Turkey has made tremendous advances on the maritime front to increase its naval capabilities and expand areas of operation in the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas. The “Blue Homeland” doctrine reflects Turkey’s willingness to project power in its maritime zones and, importantly, to protect its energy and security interests.

Diplomatic Aspirations and Global Autonomy

Turkey’s foreign policy is becoming characterized increasingly by a doctrine of strategic autonomy—putting national interests first, irrespective of bloc politics. It wants to be a significant player, not just regionally but globally.

Turkey calls for reform to international institutions, specifically the United Nations Security Council, indicating that no single bloc or group should dominate global governance. It is taking an active role in multilateral forums such as the G20, OECD, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and Developing 8.

Turkey is also assertively trying to move away visually from being a peripheral NATO ally toward being a central diplomatic power which can manage both regional crises and global issues, through summits, bilateral engagements, and humanitarian efforts.

Domestic Politics and the International Complications

The internal political trends of the past decade in Turkey have considerable ramifications in the international arena. The past decade has seen the consolidation of executive authority, restrictions on freer expression, and a continued tension between democratic economic side and executive authority that intends to concentrate power. These issues have raised alarm for many of Turkey’s Western partners and have called into question its more legitimate democratic credentials, but more importantly, its relevant geopolitical value very often overshadows these domestic issues. Most Western states remain willing to engage Turkey in bilateral arrangements based on Turkey’s functional role in managing migration, counterterrorism, and security strategy in the region. However, the fact that domestic governance should remain important in any long-term relationship is lost if there are no parallel attention to governance issues along with strategic engagements.

Turkey’s elections, legal reforms, and civil social movements are monitored closely by international observers and a concern for domestic stability should be paramount for Turkey’s continued regional leadership.

Expanding Footprint in Africa, Central Asia, and the Caucasus

Turkey is extending its geopolitical reach into regions beyond its traditional sphere. In Africa, it has opened over 40 embassies, launched numerous infrastructure and development projects, and secured defense cooperation agreements with multiple states. Its visibility in Africa reflects both humanitarian interests and competition with other powers such as China, Russia, and the Gulf.

In the Caucasus, Turkey played a decisive role during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war by backing Azerbaijan militarily and diplomatically. The outcome enhanced Turkey’s leverage in the region and enabled it to promote new trade corridors linking the Caspian to Europe.

In Central Asia, Turkey’s cultural and linguistic ties have been utilized to foster deeper engagement through organizations like the Organization of Turkic States. This outreach diversifies Turkey’s partnerships and aligns with its broader goal of strategic diversification.

 In conclusion Turkey is a prominent player in global geopolitics because it serves as a bridge, a buffer, and a centre for power. Turkey’s influence is not limited to its immediate geography but spans across continents and issue spaces—from maritime security and energy, conflict resolution and economic diplomacy.

Turkey is one contender amongst several, but what stands out is its ability to balance relationships with both the West and East, to mediate in conflicts, to secure vital energy corridors and to sustain military strength as needed. This makes Turkey one of the most essential players in the international system regardless of its domestic political challenges.

As global fault lines shift and new power centres emerge, Turkey’s role in the geopolitical equation becomes more daunting—whether it is as a partner at the peace table, a counterweight in the region, or a military strategic balancing act amongst rivals.

By: C Shraddha

The existence of the United States-Israel relationship predates the statehood of the Jewish nation-state. On March 3, 1919, the 28th President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, endorsed the creation of a “Jewish homeland in Palestine” known as the Balfour Declaration. He expressed, “The allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth”. This materialised in the 1920s and 1940s when the US Congress pushed for the creation of the Jewish state through the endorsement of resolutions of the Balfour Declaration. Another instance of such American urgency can be traced back to May 14, 1948. On that day, the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed statehood. 11 minutes later, the US became the first country to officially recognise the state of Israel. In the words of then-President Harry S Truman, “I had faith in Israel before it was established, I have faith in it now.”

Despite such early examples of international brotherhood, the initial two decades following statehood was quite the opposite. As a result of the Suez War, Israel fell out of favour with President Eisenhower. Consequently, Washington threatened to cut aid unless Israel withdrew from the captured territories. Meanwhile, the communist superpower, Soviet Union, threatened to fire missiles at the Zionist state if it did not withdraw from the area. Additionally, the nuclear programme of the state raised concerns for the Kennedy administration in the 1960s. 

The “special relationship” as endorsed by President John F Kennedy thrived in the post-1967 war era. The Six-day war between Israel and the Arab axis of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan showcased the defence capability of the Jewish nation. Israel was able to defeat the Arab coalition, capture new territory, and minimize losses while receiving little to no support from international players or forces. Furthermore, the humiliating strategic position of the United States in the Vietnam war and their inability to actively intrude in the matters of the Middle East, framed Israel as a worthy ally in the region. As the Stanford University Professor on Middle East history, Joel Beinin aptly observed “What’s key about the ‘67 War was Israel defeated the Arabs hands down in six days with absolutely no American military assistance. What that said to the United States was, ‘These guys are good. We are in a mess in Vietnam.  Let’s be connected to them’. Now, the Jewish nation was no longer a mere potential military foothold for the Americans, but it also served as a medium for repelling the socialist-communist ideologies propagated by the Soviet Union. 

The 1990s and 2000s witnessed the uninterrupted flow of US aid to Israel under the Clinton administration, aimed at supporting the “sacred mission” of establishing lasting peace in West Asia. Clinton, along with the newly elected Prime Minister Ehud Barak, held a joint press conference in which the former urged the US Congress to hasten the US$ 1.2 billion aid reserved for Israel as per the Wye peace agreement. Additionally, Clinton stated the intent of the nation to continue offering aid to Palestinians and other Arab nations in an attempt to balance the delicate situation in West Asia. 

In the context of Israel-Palestine relations, the stance of the US has slightly varied throughout the centuries. While consistent support for Israel has been the cornerstone of American policies, initial positions indicate an interest in assuming the role of a diplomatic mediator between the two parties. In 1998, Clinton served as a mediator between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat during the Wye River Memorandum. Although Israel agreed to give up control of parts of the West Bank in return for the Palestinian administration undertaking steps to prevent attacks against Israeli civilians, the promises fell apart not long after. Netanyahu lauded the memorandum by stating, “Today’s a day when Israel and our entire region are more secure. Now, this has required sacrifice from both sides and reaching into what Lincoln called the better nature of mankind.” However, despite his appreciation for the accord, Israeli forces never withdrew from the agreed 13.1 per cent of the West Bank. Furthermore, the US$ 1.2 billion was not released. 

The relationship between the two countries can be superficially categorised into financial, ideological and military. Since its inception, the Jewish state has been the largest cumulative recipient of US aid, receiving approximately US$ 310 billion in military and economic assistance. While the US has provided assistance to other countries of the region, such as Iraq and Egypt, the enormous economic assistance received by the Zionist state’s military has enabled it to be the best in West Asia. Provisionally, the US has agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to provide Israel with US$ 3.8 billion annually till 2028. 

Since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7, 2023, America has provided direct military aid of over US$ 12.5 billion through various legislations, including US$ 3.8 billion in March 2024 and US$ 8.7 billion due to a supplemental appropriation act in April 2024. As per analysts from Brown University, Linda J Bilmes, Stephen Semler and William D Hartung, Israel has received US$ 17.9 billion from the United States since the inception of the war. This figure entails the cost of replenishing weaponry for Israel by the US Defense Department. 

This provokes the question of why the US is heavily invested in the Zionist state. Israel is the linchpin in America’s Middle East policy. Republican party Senator Lindsey Graham once referred to Israel as the “eyes and ears of America”. The country’s interests in the region are driven by several factors, including the oil abundance, which leads it to assume the role of a guarantor and mediator of regional stability. This can be witnessed across time periods. Despite ideological evolution and strategic realignment, the tactical basis for this relationship has remained the same throughout. For the US, Israel is an instrument through which it can control the radicalisation of West Asia and regulate threats of Islamic extremism and violence. Furthermore, the advanced military capabilities of the states have enabled them to bar the advancements of nuclear programmes and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the hands of volatile players such as Syria and Iraq. 

Political scientist Brent Sasley has aptly summarised the Israel-US relationship. According to Sasley, the US views the other as a “force of stability” in the West Asia region. Sasley explains that “in the sense that Israel can stabilise what’s going on in the Middle East. If there’s fear of Jordan being undermined by an internal or external enemy, the United States sometimes turns to Israel to pose a threat to that threat.” However, experts have noted the drawbacks of this overly-invested alliance. While the heads of the states remain in collusion despite the genocide in Gaza, critics argue that the unwavering American support has jeopardised the nation’s stronghold over the region. International actors and scholars have criticised the Biden as well as Trump administration for aiding the ‘world’s most documented genocide’ and blatantly ignoring human rights under the guise of self-defence. 

Despite such commentary, the US and Israel still continue to assist each other in traditional security measures through sharing intelligence on extremism, nuclear proliferation, terrorism and regional politics. Together, they have developed advanced military technologies such as the Arrow missile defence systems, David’s Sling counter-rocket and the Iron Dome. The Iron Dome, or the missile defence shield of Israel, was constructed with the components and financial assistance provided by the United States. As Israel boasts about possessing one of the most advanced defence systems in the world, President Donald Trump suggested the creation of a “Golden Dome”, a large-scale next-generation missile shield inspired by the Israeli model.   

Furthermore, Israel remains home to a key US military base that serves the purpose of containing and blockading Iran’s nuclear development plans. In order to strengthen its strategic position, two months before the war broke out, the Pentagon granted a multimillion-dollar tender to a prominent Israeli construction company, Bryan Ashush JV or Ashush, for the expansion of the base. Known as “Site 512”, this US-classified base is situated on top of Mount Har Qeren in the Negev desert, with Iran as its primary focus. Hailed as the “life support facility,” it showcases the rising presence of the US in the Middle East while intending to fulfil a secondary objective, that is, to keep Iran out of the -Palestine conflict- an effort that has ultimately failed.   

The decades-long United States- Israel alliance is one of the most controversial yet stable partnerships in the modern-day geopolitical environment. Since the inception of the state, the US has deemed the country to be a stable ally powerful enough to maintain the balance of the Middle East. As President Ronald Reagen voiced, “Israel is an integral part of the free world… Both a secure state of Israel and a stable Mideast peace are essential to our national interests.” While this relationship has proven to be advantageous to the administrations involved, it has raised criticism from all sections of society. The unwavering military and economic assistance provided by the US during the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has tarnished America’s moral credibility on the global stage. The blanket support provided by the superpower for the Jewish state in international organisations such as the United Nations has provoked accusations of selective justice. As the region continues to remain volatile, the constant intervention of the US leadership has inadvertently and disproportionately favoured Israel while failing to address the intensity of the underlying issues. 

By: Ahana Sarkar

Field Marshal Asim Munir’s recent visit to the United States marks a critical juncture in Pakistan-USA relations, coming at a time when Pakistan faces mounting economic crises, political instability, and regional security challenges. The visit also coincides with shifting global dynamics, including the USA’s strategic focus on countering China and ensuring stability in South Asia. Against this backdrop, the meeting reflects the ongoing importance of military diplomacy as both nations seek to address their respective priorities.

This visit raises key questions about the nature of Pakistan-USA relations: Is it a move toward deeper collaboration, a continuation of their historically transactional ties, or a balancing act in an increasingly multipolar world? General Munir’s engagements in Washington, including discussions on counterterrorism, military cooperation, and regional stability, suggest a pragmatic approach to recalibrate ties amidst evolving global realities.

Pakistan and the US have had a rollercoaster relationship over the decades. Born during the Cold War, this partnership was initially meant to counter Soviet influence, with Pakistan getting economic and military aid in return for its geostrategic location. Key moments like Pakistan’s role in helping the US to make peace with China in the 70s, its involvement in the Afghan-Soviet war in the 80s and its cooperation in the post 9/11 war on terror have made it a significant, if often troublesome, player in Washington’s foreign policy game.

Despite decades of collaboration, the nature of Pakistan-USA relations remains complex, often driven by immediate strategic needs rather than a shared long-term vision. This closeness is frequently seen as transactional, reflecting the priorities of the moment rather than a genuine partnership. For Pakistan, the United States has been a source of critical military and economic aid, while for Washington, Pakistan serves as a key player in regional security and counterterrorism. Yet, this relationship is marred by mutual mistrust and diverging regional goals.

In the early years of the Cold War, Pakistan emerged as a critical ally for the USA in its global campaign against Soviet expansionism. Joining military alliances such as the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) in 1954 and the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) in 1955, Pakistan positioned itself as a key player in the West’s containment strategy. In return, it received substantial military aid and economic assistance, which bolstered its defence capabilities and economic development. However, these alliances also deepened its dependency on the USA and often led to criticism from non-aligned nations.

The 1980s marked a turning point when Pakistan’s geographical position became vital during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As a frontline state, it facilitated American covert operations to support Afghan mujahideen fighters. Billions of dollars in military and economic aid flowed into Pakistan, strengthening its armed forces and intelligence networks. This period not only solidified Pakistan’s importance in American foreign policy but also fostered the emergence of complex regional challenges, such as the rise of militancy and instability in Afghanistan.

Post-9/11, Pakistan once again became indispensable to the USA, this time as a key ally in the War on Terror. Its cooperation was crucial in countering extremist groups and facilitating military operations in Afghanistan. The relationship deepened, with Pakistan receiving significant military aid, intelligence-sharing arrangements, and economic support. However, this era also brought heightened scrutiny and mistrust, as the USA often questioned Pakistan’s commitment to combating terrorism, citing instances of double-dealing and harbouring extremist networks.

The cornerstone of Pakistan-USA cooperation has been their military and strategic partnership. Joint military operations, particularly in the post-9/11 era, have underscored the importance of this collaboration. Pakistan’s support for the United States during the War on Terror was instrumental in dismantling terrorist networks in the region. Intelligence-sharing agreements and counterterrorism operations further solidified this alliance, with Pakistan serving as a crucial hub for American interests in South Asia. Additionally, the USA has historically relied on Pakistan’s air bases for logistical and operational support, especially during conflicts in Afghanistan. This strategic access has underscored Pakistan’s geographical significance. In return, the USA has provided substantial military aid, modern weaponry, and training for Pakistan’s armed forces, enhancing its defence capabilities.

Economic assistance has been another pillar of Pakistan-USA relations. Through USAID, the United States has funded a range of development programs in Pakistan, addressing critical sectors like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Investments in public health initiatives, such as immunisation campaigns and maternal health programs, have improved the quality of life for millions of Pakistanis. In education, scholarship programs and funding for schools have expanded access to learning opportunities in underserved regions. Infrastructure projects, including energy and water management systems, have aimed to bolster Pakistan’s economic growth and stability. While these programs have been impactful, they are often viewed through a strategic lens, aimed at fostering goodwill and stability in a region of vital interest to the USA.

Beyond strategic and economic ties, cultural and academic exchanges have fostered people-to-people connections between Pakistan and the USA. The Fulbright Scholarship Program, for example, has enabled Pakistani students to study at prestigious American universities, enriching academic and professional ties between the two nations. Similarly, cultural initiatives, such as performing arts tours and language programs, have promoted mutual understanding and appreciation. The Pakistani diaspora in the United States has also played a pivotal role in strengthening bilateral ties. As one of the fastest-growing immigrant communities, Pakistani-Americans contribute to various sectors, from technology to healthcare, while maintaining cultural and economic links with their homeland.

One of the most persistent challenges in Pakistan-USA relations is the deep-seated mistrust between the two nations. The United States has frequently accused Pakistan of supporting militant groups operating in the region, such as the Haqqani network and the Afghan Taliban. These allegations, particularly during the post-9/11 era, have strained their partnership, with Washington questioning Pakistan’s commitment to counterterrorism. On the other hand, Pakistan perceives the USA as an unreliable partner, citing instances of abrupt policy shifts and perceived abandonment, such as the cessation of military aid during the 1990s and the USA’s pivot towards India. The 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, without prior notice to Islamabad, further deepened the trust deficit, exposing the fragile nature of their alliance.

National interests often diverge between Pakistan and the United States, leading to friction in their relationship. For Pakistan, India remains its primary security concern, shaping much of its foreign and defence policies. However, the USA’s growing strategic partnership with India, particularly in countering China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific, has been a source of unease for Islamabad. This shift is viewed as undermining Pakistan’s regional position and contributing to an imbalance in South Asia.
Similarly, their approaches to Afghanistan have often been at odds. While Pakistan seeks a stable and friendly Afghan government to counter Indian influence, the USA has criticised Pakistan for allegedly harbouring insurgents who destabilise Afghanistan. This divergence has complicated cooperation, especially during the USA’s prolonged military engagement in the region.

The nature of American financial aid to Pakistan has also been a contentious issue. While billions of dollars in military and economic aid have flowed into Pakistan over the decades, this assistance is often seen as a tool of influence rather than a genuine investment in mutual growth. Critics argue that American aid is highly conditional, tied to strategic imperatives rather than the long-term development of Pakistan’s economy or institutions. This dependency on external aid has created vulnerabilities for Pakistan, undermining its sovereignty and fostering a perception of imbalance in the relationship. At the same time, the USA has expressed frustration over the perceived misuse of funds, alleging that financial assistance meant for development or counterterrorism has been diverted for other purposes.

Both countries have gained significantly from their partnership. For Pakistan, American military aid and advanced weaponry have strengthened its defence capabilities, while economic assistance has supported development in key sectors such as health, education, and infrastructure. On the other hand, the USA benefits from Pakistan’s strategic geographical location, providing a gateway to South Asia and the Middle East. Pakistan’s role in facilitating American military operations and intelligence-gathering in Afghanistan has been indispensable, particularly during the War on Terror. While these benefits highlight the utility of the relationship, they also expose its pragmatic nature, where collaboration is often driven by immediate needs rather than shared long-term goals.

The closeness between Pakistan and the USA has far-reaching implications for regional and global politics. In South Asia, this partnership serves as a counterbalance to India’s growing influence and China’s expanding presence. However, it also exacerbates tensions, particularly with India, which perceives Pakistan-USA ties as a threat to its strategic interests. In the broader Middle East, the partnership influences the balance of power, particularly in counterterrorism and conflict resolution efforts. The USA’s engagement with Pakistan indirectly shapes its relationships with other regional players, including Iran, Afghanistan, and the Gulf states, underscoring the global interconnectedness of their alliance.

Looking ahead, the future of Pakistan-USA relations depends on their ability to address existing tensions while capitalising on shared interests. A deeper alliance would require rebuilding trust and aligning long-term strategic objectives, particularly in areas like counterterrorism, climate change, and economic development. However, the transactional nature of their partnership, rooted in historical precedence, may persist. Both nations are likely to continue prioritising short-term goals over enduring commitments, especially as global geopolitics become increasingly multipolar.

The Pakistan-USA relationship is a testament to the complexities of modern geopolitics, blending strategic necessity with underlying mistrust and diverging priorities. Over the decades, their partnership has evolved through phases of cooperation and contention, driven by shared interests in military collaboration, counterterrorism, and regional stability. Yet, persistent challenges, ranging from a trust deficit to conflicting regional goals and economic dependencies, underscore the fragile foundation of their closeness.

In my view, the relationship between Pakistan and the United States is neither wholly strategic nor purely transactional but a hybrid shaped by the ever-changing dynamics of global politics. While both nations derive significant benefits from their collaboration, the lack of a unified long-term vision limits the potential for a deeper alliance. This ambivalence reflects not only historical precedence but also the complex interplay of regional and global forces that continue to shape their interactions.

As the world transitions toward an increasingly multipolar order, alliances like the one between Pakistan and the USA face greater scrutiny and uncertainty. The sustainability of their partnership will hinge on their ability to rebuild trust, address mutual concerns, and adapt to new geopolitical realities. A more constructive relationship will require transparent dialogue, a commitment to shared objectives, and a recognition of each other’s evolving priorities. Whether this partnership can transcend its transactional nature and achieve true strategic depth remains an open question, one that will define its relevance in the years to come.

By: Namya Sethi

The Middle East is still enormously significant to world politics because it has a lot of oil, is the birthplace of three major religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism), and has a long history of violence and political instability. The United States (US) has had a large effect on the region’s politics and security in the last few decades because of its military activities, diplomatic efforts, and strategic partnerships.

A lot of people felt the US was drawing back from its large involvement in Middle Eastern problems after being active in Iraq for a long time (2003–2011) and Afghanistan for a long time (2001–2021). Recent events, on the other hand, show that the return is more balanced and built on diplomacy, cooperation, and partnerships with more than one country. On the other side, China and Russia are gaining power by striking deals in defense, energy, technology, and infrastructure. Because of this, peace in the Middle East is a concern for the whole world, not just the Middle East.

As a college student majoring in sociology, I believe this is a significant period. We need a nuanced and multi-faceted approach that involves diplomacy, development, and respect for local voices, as well as hard power, to bring peace to the Middle East.

Historical Background

The US became more active in the Middle East after World War II. Washington helped build Israel in 1948 and made strategic alliances with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. During the Cold War, the US fought against Soviet power. But the biggest change happened after the attacks on September 11, 2001, when the US initiated the Global War on Terror and invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in March 2003.
These actions were originally supposed to stop weapons of mass destruction and break up terrorist networks. However, they swiftly developed into long, costly occupations.

The region was in chaos for a long time after groups like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein’s government were destroyed because of the instability and insurgencies that followed.

People in the US and the Middle East were tired of the military being there all the time by the middle of the 2010s. As Washington began to withdraw from direct engagement, other nations, notably Russia, Iran, Turkey, and China, assumed the power vacuum.

The Trump Years (2017–2021)

President Donald Trump’s foreign policy changed a lot about how the US worked in the area. The US left the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), generally known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, on May 8, 2018. This put Iran back under harsh sanctions. The decision was controversial, which made many angry and led to clashes in the region.
Trump also helped make the Abraham Accords, which were signed in September 2020. These accords made relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco normal. These agreements were a huge change since they demonstrated that certain Arab countries were willing to talk to Israel diplomatically, even while there was no progress toward Palestinian statehood.

Critics, including me, recognized that the Accords were a diplomatic success, but they weren’t sure if they would continue without a complete peace process that includes Palestinians. The Trump administration also skipped established multilateral forums, which made it look like they were more interested in short-term deals than long-term growth.

Biden’s New Plan

Joe Biden promised to bring back diplomacy and multilateralism when he became president in January 2021. His government tried to make friends again while also reducing back on direct military action. After the failed withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, the US sounded cautious but set on changing how it was involved in the region.

Instead of sending soldiers, Biden prioritized humanitarian aid, working together in the region, and diplomacy. His government offered more money to United Nations (UN) humanitarian efforts in war-torn areas and began talking to Iran and its neighbors again. The US began to speak more openly about safeguarding civilians and human rights, but it still had strong ties to Israel and the Gulf states.

Reestablishing a Presence in 2025

It was evident by the start of 2025 that the US was going to get back involved in the Middle East with a new plan. In March 2025, Houthi insurgents attacked commercial ships in the Red Sea, which caused a coordinated response. The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) from the US joined French and Egyptian naval soldiers to protect global trade channels and stop additional attacks.

This marked a shift from acting alone to cooperating with regional and international partners on joint efforts. The emphasis on protecting trade and maritime infrastructure demonstrated that America sought peace through stability rather than conflict.

Help for persons who need it and safety for civilians

The US committed to provide Gaza US$1.2 billion in humanitarian aid on May 16, 2025, after things became worse. The support, which was delivered with the help of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), focused on food, housing, clean water, and emergency medical care.

The US aid proposal plainly indicated for the first time in years that it would safeguard civilians no matter what their political opinions were. The US was still firmly on Israel’s side, but it was open to diplomacy that balanced humanitarian concerns with strategic ones.

Reevaluating Military Aid to Israel

Reports that came out in June 2025 indicated that US-made weapons were used in populated civilian areas in Gaza. This made both sides of the aisle in the US Congress upset, which led to hearings on how to keep an eye on military spending. Civil society groups wanted all arms transfers to be linked to requirements for human rights.

The Biden administration stated it still supports Israel, but it also promised to be more open and watch things after the sale. The argument marked a turning moment that made ethics and responsibility important parts of foreign military policy.

Iranian diplomacy

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) fell apart, although talks with Iran started up again in Vienna in early 2025. The US, European Union (EU), and regional powers talked to each other to try to block Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and to stop cyberattacks and proxy conflicts in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

Although progress is still gradual, the talks suggest that people are starting to believe in working together again. This is really crucial for a student. Talking, even if it doesn’t help right away, builds trust and keeps problems from getting worse.

Military exercises and working together

There are around 30,000 US troops in Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq, and Kuwait. The US and Jordan staged significant joint drills in May 2025 that focused on battling terrorism, regulating borders, and sharing information. This kind of cooperation is very crucial since cells connected to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) are coming back.

These drills are different from earlier campaigns because they focus on giving local forces the tools and training they need to keep the peace.

Working together in business

In 2025, the shift to economic diplomacy was a huge change. In April 2025, the US and Iraq made a US$2.5 billion contract to aid with solar energy, fix up Mosul’s public schools, and make the area’s health care better. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is carrying out US-backed reforms in Lebanon to stabilize the banking sector and restore basic services.

Things that cause conflict, such as not having a job, not having enough money, and not being able to receive an education, are what economic development is all about. The change from bombs to budgets shows that peace must be built from the ground up.

Soft Power and Programs for Young People

The US is still putting money into soft power. Educational programs like the Fulbright Program helped regional scholarships expand by 30% between 2015 and 2025. Two universities that bring people from diverse cultures together are New York University (NYU) Abu Dhabi and Georgetown University in Qatar.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) pays for projects in Tunisia, Morocco, and Iraq that promote women’s rights, literacy, and entrepreneurship. These programs help people get to know one another better and make connections that last by treating each other with respect and working together to make progress.

Public Opinion and Civic Engagement

Even if the US works with several Middle Eastern regimes, a lot of people in those nations still don’t trust the US. In May 2025, people in Beirut, Amman, and Baghdad started to protest peacefully. People who were protesting wanted foreign aid to be more open and local governments to have more power to make decisions.

From the point of view of young people and students, these voices need to be heard. To bring peace to the Middle East, people in different communities and countries need to talk to one other.

The Future of Technology and New Ideas

Digital cooperation is a new area to explore. In 2025, tech leaders and think tanks in the US started talking to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) about how to control artificial intelligence (AI) and cybersecurity. People are still talking about formal treaties, but early exchanges suggest that innovative diplomacy will play a significant role.

If we give power to regional businesses, promote smart infrastructure, and make sure that digital ecosystems are safe, the area could change. Investing in fresh ideas helps the economy stay strong now and in the future.

The Role of Multilateral Institutions

The US is depending more and more on multilateral groups like the United Nations (UN), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to advocate for sustainable development and call for reforms in how countries are run. In nations that aren’t stable, like Yemen and Lebanon, cooperative initiatives help keep an eye on corruption, support elections, and send help in times of need.

This multilateral method makes sure that many countries work together to keep the peace, not just one big one.

The Media’s Part in Cultural Diplomacy

American culture is still quite popular over the world. In March 2025, the US Embassy in Amman organized a celebration for cultural interaction. Over 40,000 people came to see Arab student poets and American jazz musicians. Even though these moments are symbolic, they help people comprehend each other and get rid of their biases.

Media projects financed by the US also help young journalists in the area battle extremist propaganda and encourage free expression.

Issues with security and ethical leadership

The US still has to figure out how to balance its moral duties with its military ones. A new rule passed by the US Congress in June 2025 said that weapons had to be tracked after they were sold and that the people who used them had to be checked. This makes sure that guns aren’t used against people who aren’t involved in crime or violence. This is part of a wider shift in US foreign policy, from controlling to working together and from dominating to conversing.

The law is a huge change that signals that arms deals will be more open and fairer. It addresses global concerns about fatalities and the misuse of U.S.-supplied armaments. Instead of extending the fight by giving the military too much freedom, the U.S. aims to restore confidence, obey international law, and help rebuilding efforts by tightening monitoring.

Conclusion

As of June 2025, the United States is at a crossroads in the Middle East. The country is no longer known for invading and occupying other countries. Instead, diplomacy, humanitarian action, economic investment, and cultural involvement define it. We can’t make peace in the Middle East; we have to work together to make it happen. The greatest way to move forward is to provide power to local communities, put money into education, support an honest foreign policy, and make civil voices heard.

As a sociology student, I believe that the US has the ability and the opportunity to be more than just a superpower. It may also be a good partner in making the Middle East a safe place to live by being accountable, responsive, and polite. For this transition to happen, we need to move away from policies that are all about power and toward ones that are all about people. The United States should support grassroots initiatives to promote peace, put human rights first in its relationships, and advocate for inclusive governance in the region. Long-term peace can only happen when foreign policy is based on what average people desire, not just what is best for the country. By listening, learning, and leading with kindness, the United States can help make the world a better place.

By: Simran Sodhi

It would be an appropriate assessment to make at this point that one of the biggest casualties of the Israel-Iran conflict is likely to be the ambitious India-Middle East- Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). The project was announced on the side lines of the G20 Summit held in September 2023 in New Delhi and aims to connect India to Europe via the Middle East with ports, railways and roads. Many analysts point out that the IMEC will challenge China’s Belt and Road Initiative, when completed, and that is also the reason why the United States had backed the project with great enthusiasm (but so far has not committed any funding for the project). 2023 was the time when Joe Biden was President of the US and had backed the project, but with President Donald Trump at the helm of affairs now, that is yet another unpredictability in the project taking off. 

The proposed corridor will link India to Europe via the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel and Greece. First it was the Israel-Gaza conflict that changed the equations between the Middle East and Israel. The 2020 Abraham Accords, wherein UAE normalized relations with Israel followed by Morocco, was seen as a watershed moment in Middle East politics. It also saw Saudi Arabia moving forward to recognising Israel, prodded by the US that it would provide the Saudis security assurances in return for recognizing Israel. All that changed on Oct 7, 2023 with the horrific attack by Hamas. And as Israel continues to bomb Gaza in an unrelenting fashion, all deals seem off the table. And now with the heightened tensions between Iran-Israel, the fate of IMEC is more uncertain than ever before.

Economics and politics are deeply intertwined and nowhere is this more obvious than in the ambitious IMEC project to link continents. As the political situation changes and Iran-Israel tensions peak, with Gaza already in the middle of a humanitarian crisis, it will become difficult for the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to promote any economic activity that links them to Israel. It is also to be noted here that this becomes more problematic in Jordan where most of the kingdom’s population is ethnically Palestinian, including Queen Rania.

The Middle East, since 2023, seems to be in a constant state of tensions that show little sign of an early resolution. Iran today, even after the US bombing and its recent war with Israel, seems to be standing tall and reports suggest little or no damage to its nuclear capabilities. It’s proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon have nevertheless been weakened to a great degree. For Iran, this is also an opportunity to take a leadership role in the region and push the Saudis down a bit on the rung. IMEC is also going to get affected in the context here that the Saudis can ill afford an impression both domestically and in the Middle East region that they failed to stand by the Palestinians. And with the Saudis not wanting to go ahead with recognizing Israel, and then not wanting to get into deeper economic ties with Israel, IMEC will have trouble taking off. It would be a safe bet to state at this point that even if IMEC eventually does take shape, it is unlikely to happen as long as this conflict and humanitarian crisis continues.

After the Oct 7 attack by Hamas, former US President Joe Biden had twice said that he was convinced that IMEC is one of the reasons why Hamas attacked Israel. “I’m convinced one of the reasons Hamas attacked when they did, and I have no proof of this, just my instinct tells me, is because of the progress we were making towards regional integration for Israel, and regional integration overall. We can’t leave that work behind,” he said. There is little doubt in most people’s minds today that the attacks by Hamas was meant to bring world attention back to the Palestine cause, and to stop Saudi Arabia from going forward with recognising Israel since this regional economic integration would have brought Israel closer to UAE and Saudi Arabia.       

So, in the short term, it would be a fair point to make that as long as the crisis in Gaza continues and the Israel-Iran tensions dominate the regional politics, one should expect UAE and Saudi Arabia to focus more on their inter-connectivity projects. India can always be included in those equations but the inclusion of Israel is difficult. Saudi Arabia has said repeatedly that there can be no recognition of Israel without a Palestinian State. So IMEC is likely to be a limited project going forward, contrary to the grand ambitions with which it was launched. Once things return to a new normal, we might see IMEC and its related projects take off but as of today, this will remain on the backfoot for most member states.

By: Geehan Kooner

‘Wars begin where deep currents of conflict between major powers converge—where opposing military forces face each other, poised for action. One false move or a deliberate act can trigger disaster.’ One such flashpoint today is the sharpening dispute over Taiwan. The island has become the focus of tectonic scale geopolitical tensions, a faultline ready to fracture and pull China into a clash that could engulf the United States and its allies around the world.

The issue revolves around China’s claim over Taiwan, a self-governing democracy that functions like an independent nation but is not widely recognised as a sovereign state. Chinese President Xi Jinping, has tightened his authoritarian grip and built up a powerful military focused on what Beijing calls the “reunification” of Taiwan with the Chinese motherland. According to various reports, a full scale invasion could be launched by China by 2027. Latest Chinese military movements have only added to the seriousness. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has significantly raised its presence and activity around the island by sending dozens of warships, aircraft carriers, and warplanes. The growing antagonism over the Taiwanese Strait and the gravely entrenched US- China rivalry has made this conflict one of the most critical in the world.

Historical Fault Lines

To truly grasp and understand the present scenario, one has to step back and explore the past. China lost its grip over Taiwan during what is referred to as the century of humiliation. From the middle of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century, a series of invasions and internal disputes plagued China. To this day, this notion of humiliation has shaped the Chinese state ideology. In 1895, Japan seized control over Taiwan and made it a colony under the Treaty of Shimonoseki. However, after World War II, Japan was forced by the allies to surrender Taiwan. China, during that time found itself caught up and embroiled in a civil war with the Nationalists (ROC) led by Chiang Kai-shek battling against the Communists led by Mao Zedong.

In 1949, the People’s Republic of China was established on the mainland, when victorious communists marched into Beijing. After the government of the Republic of China was defeated, they retreated to Taiwan. Since that time, two rival governments have emerged, each claiming to represent China: the PRC in Beijing and the ROC in Taipei. The PRC government in Beijing sees Taiwan as a breakaway province and says there is only one China even though they have never actually governed it. Most of the world including the U.S.  accepts this One China policy thus not recognising Taiwan as an independent country.

So, the question arises, ‘why is the U.S. backing Taiwan then?’ In the aftermath of the civil war, the US initially saw the nationalist government in Taiwan as the only legitimate or real China, turning it back and rejecting the communist government on the mainland. US soldiers were even stationed in Taiwan under a common defence pact. However, during the 1970s a major change occurred as the US moved closer to Beijing which resulted in the closing of the US embassy in Taiwan and pulling out the US troops. Despite the complexities, the US continued informal relations through the American institute in Taiwan which acts like a de facto American embassy. The U.S. deliberately follows an ambiguous and vague scheme on military support for Taiwan, aiming to balance deterring Chinese aggression while also managing Taiwanese aspirations for independence. Taiwan remains a critical flashpoint in the U.S.-China relations, with its status symbolizing deeper ideological and historical divisions.

Taiwan’s strategic geography and US “First Island Chain” Strategy

Taiwan’s location makes it a geopolitical flashpoint. Located merely 130 km away from China’s mainland, Taiwan is home to about 23 million people. The island is strategically positioned at the intersection of three crucial maritime chokepoints: the Taiwan Strait to the west, the Miyako Strait (between Taiwan and Japan) to the north, and the Bashi Channel (between Taiwan and the Philippines) to the south. These routes are essential for world trade, military logistics and regional security, making Taiwan a strategic barrier or gateway between the East China Sea and the broader Pacific Ocean.

Taiwan also sits at the heart of the US “First Island Chain” strategy. It is a line which links US allied territories and military bases running from Japan, South Korea and Philippines.

While Taiwan may not be an official ally of the US, its strategic and pivotal location plays an important role in allowing the US to project its power close to China’s coastline, safeguarding and protecting its allies and interests. On the flip side, the Chinese military finds it quite challenging to extend its reach beyond the first island chain making it tough for them to pose a direct threat or challenge to the United States and its interests in the indo pacific region.

To strengthen this island chain, the US is ramping up military cooperation and partnerships with Japan and the Philippines, which are also cautious about China’s expansionist ambitions. Nevertheless, Beijing is swiftly modernising its navy, in order to enhance its ability to be able to break through this network of US allies. Thus, it is the strategic location of Taiwan which makes it immensely important to both sides in order to gain an edge over the other in the region.

Taiwan’s Tech Edge

Besides its strategic location, the rivalry is also about money. Economically, the small island also has an outsize importance for both China and the US, and at the center of this economic clout is TSMC: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. This company produces the world’s most advanced and sophisticated semiconductor chips making both the US and China dependent on them. These tiny chips are used in everything from smartphones and electric vehicles to advanced military systems and AI models. This technological centrality has made this small island indispensable to both the US and China. Any disruption or Chinese takeover could permanently shift economic tides against the US and it could lock the region into a new technological and economic order—one less open to Western trade and influence.

Taiwan’s Enduring Status Quo

Taiwan exists in a strange limbo, a situation that has existed for decades and shaped realities on the ground. Taiwan developed from a nationalist authoritarian regime into one of the strongest democracies in the region marked by competitive elections, free press, and progressive civil liberties. Taiwan was first in Asia to legalise same sex marriage. This ambiguous status neither fully independent nor under Beijing’s control has become the de facto reality. Last year a progressive party was re-elected for the third term, signaling to maintain this delicate balance.

Amid the ongoing rivalry between the US and China, many feel that Taiwan is only a pawn in this larger game. Regardless of external pressures, a strong sentiment runs across Taiwanese society that the island’s future should be decided by its people alone, through democratic means and without coercion. The island’s status remains unresolved but its democratic identity is firmly established.

Big Stakes for A Small Island

Taiwan represents ideological, historical, and strategic significance for both superpowers. It has embraced the US worldview, which promotes democracy and capitalism. China, on the other hand, is a one-party system with a socialist market economy. A significant Chinese narrative revolves around Taiwanese islands. Xi Jinping, the Chinese president views the reunification of Taiwan as an important step in addressing the aforementioned historical humiliation. This effort is a part of what’s known as ‘national rejuvenation’, aiming to make the Chinese nation a great power. For the US, supporting Taiwan also means keeping up key alliances in the region and promoting democratic ideals. If China invades and annexes Taiwan, we would witness democracy being snuffed out which could send chilling effects to democracies around the world. We would have questions being raised in South Korea, Japan and the Philippines on whether they can trust the United States for their security.

Given Taiwan’s strategic location and its symbolic worth, neither China nor the US can afford to back down, leaving the rest of the world as mere spectators in this unfolding superpower rivalry.