This needs to be in 4 parts.
Part 1- India vs. USA Tariff War
The United States and India, two of the world’s largest economies, are locked in a heated trade dispute that’s making headlines. At the center of this clash is U.S. President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff policies and India’s firm response. While Trump paints India as a trade villain, the reality is far more complex. This article breaks down the ongoing tariff war, India’s bold moves at the World Trade Organization (WTO), and why the U.S. is the one missing out by ignoring fair trade principles. Let’s dive into the story, step by step, in simple terms.
What Started the Tariff War?
Trade between countries is like a two-way street. Both sides should benefit, whether through goods (like cars or steel) or services (like IT or customer support). For years, India and the U.S. have traded billions of dollars’ worth of products and services. But since Trump took office in January 2025, he’s shaken things up with new tariffs—taxes on imported goods—claiming they protect American businesses and jobs.
In March 2025, Trump slapped a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports, which hit India hard since it exports $4.56 billion worth of steel to the U.S. Then, on May 30, he doubled those tariffs to 50%, starting June 4, saying it was about “national security.” India, a major steel producer, wasn’t going to sit quietly. It fired back with a bold move: a formal notice to the WTO, signaling it might impose its own tariffs on American goods as retaliation.
India’s Strong Stand at the WTO
India’s response was clear and calculated. On May 9, 2025, it sent a notice to the WTO, warning that it could slap tariffs on U.S. products worth $7.6 billion if the U.S. didn’t back down. The U.S. rejected this, claiming its tariffs weren’t “safeguard” measures (a WTO term for temporary trade protections) but were instead about national security. India didn’t buy it. On May 13, it escalated the issue by filing a formal complaint at the WTO, calling the U.S. tariffs “arbitrary and discriminatory.” India argued that these tariffs unfairly targeted its steel, pharmaceuticals, and auto exports, violating global trade rules.
India’s move wasn’t just a reaction—it was strategic. By taking the fight to the WTO, India showed it’s ready to play by international rules while defending its interests. Unlike the U.S., which seems to bend those rules when it suits, India is using the global stage to call out unfair practices. This isn’t about starting a trade war; it’s about demanding fairness.
Trump’s Misleading Claims and Double Standards
Trump has repeatedly called India a “tariff king,” accusing it of charging high import taxes to block American goods. He even claimed in May 2025 that India offered a trade deal with “no tariffs” to avoid his wrath. India’s foreign minister quickly shut this down, saying, “Nothing is decided till everything is.” The truth? Trump’s narrative is misleading, and here’s why:
- Ignoring the Service Sector: Trump loves to talk about the U.S. trade deficit with India—the gap between what America buys from India and what it sells. He claims India’s high tariffs on goods like cars or almonds create this deficit. But he conveniently ignores India’s massive contribution to the U.S. through services. Indian IT companies, call centers, and professionals save American businesses billions by providing affordable, high-quality services. In 2024, India’s service exports to the U.S. were worth over $30 billion, balancing out much of the goods deficit. Trump’s silence on this shows he’s cherry-picking data to fit his agenda.
- Double Standards on “National Security”: When Trump imposes tariffs, he calls it a matter of national security, like protecting American steelmakers. But when India considers retaliatory tariffs to protect its own industries, the U.S. cries foul, saying India’s actions don’t follow WTO rules. This hypocrisy frustrates India, which sees trade as a two-way street, not a one-sided deal where only the U.S. benefits.
- Exaggerating India’s Tariffs: Yes, India has high tariffs on some goods, like cars or electronics, to protect its growing industries and massive population. But so does the U.S.! Trump’s own tariffs on steel, aluminum, and even iPhones made abroad (like in India) show he’s playing the same game he accuses India of. The difference? India is open to negotiating fair deals, while Trump seems to want everything on his terms.
Why the U.S. is Losing More
Trump’s tariff war might seem like a win for American industries, but it’s hurting the U.S. more than he admits. Here’s how:
- Higher Prices for Americans: Tariffs on Indian steel and other goods mean U.S. companies pay more to build cars, buildings, or machinery. These costs get passed on to American consumers, who end up paying higher prices for everything from cars to canned goods.
- Hurting U.S. Exports: If India imposes retaliatory tariffs, American products like almonds, oil, or engineering goods could face higher taxes in India’s massive market of 1.4 billion people. This would hit U.S. farmers and businesses hard, especially since India is one of the fastest-growing markets in the world.
- Missing Out on India’s Growth: India’s economy is booming, with a growing middle class eager to buy American products like iPhones or Boeing planes. By pushing India away with unfair tariffs, Trump risks losing access to this goldmine. Meanwhile, India is striking trade deals with countries like the UK and EU, proving it doesn’t need to rely on the U.S.
- Damaging Trust: India has always been open to trade deals that benefit both sides. In fact, India and the U.S. are negotiating a bilateral trade agreement aiming for $500 billion in trade by 2030. But Trump’s aggressive tactics and misleading claims—like saying India agreed to “zero tariffs”—undermine trust. India’s commerce minister, Piyush Goyal, has stressed that any deal must be fair, not a one-sided win for the U.S.
India’s Smart Strategy
India isn’t just reacting—it’s playing a long game. By taking the U.S. to the WTO, India is showing it won’t be bullied. At the same time, it’s keeping the door open for talks. Indian negotiators, led by Goyal, are pushing for a trade deal that cuts tariffs on both sides fairly. For example:
- India is offering to lower tariffs on U.S. goods like almonds and oil if the U.S. rolls back its steel tariffs.
- India wants better access for its pharmaceuticals and IT services in the U.S. market, which would save American companies money while boosting India’s exports.
- Unlike Trump’s all-or-nothing approach, India is focused on “strict reciprocity”—a deal where both countries give and take equally.
This approach shows India’s confidence. It’s not afraid to stand up to the U.S. while still seeking a win-win solution. Compare that to Trump’s strategy, which seems more about headlines than real results.
The Bigger Picture: Trade Should Benefit Both Sides
Trade isn’t a zero-sum game where one country wins and the other loses. India gets this. It’s why Indian leaders have consistently pushed for fair deals, not just with the U.S. but with other countries too. For example, India recently lowered tariffs with the EU and Japan to boost trade, showing it’s willing to compromise when the terms are fair.
Trump, on the other hand, seems to think trade is a one-way street. His tariffs and public jabs at India—like calling it a “tariff abuser”—ignore the bigger picture. The U.S. needs India’s growing market, skilled workforce, and strategic partnership, especially as it competes with China. By alienating India, Trump is shooting himself in the foot.
What’s Next?
As of June 2025, the tariff war is heating up. India’s WTO complaint is moving forward, and trade talks with the U.S. are ongoing, with a deadline looming in early July. India is ready to impose retaliatory tariffs if needed, but it’s also pushing for a deal that benefits both sides. The ball is in Trump’s court. Will he double down on his hardline stance, or will he see the value in a fair partnership with India?
One thing is clear: India isn’t backing down. It’s fighting for its rights at the WTO, negotiating smartly, and proving it’s a global player. The U.S. might think it’s winning this tariff war, but by ignoring India’s contributions and pushing unfair terms, it’s the one losing out on a massive opportunity.
Part 2 – U.S. Defense Delays and India’s Rise: Exposing America’s Hypocrisy
India has emerged as a global powerhouse, not just in trade but also in defense. Its military strength, homegrown technology, and strategic autonomy have made it a force to be reckoned with. Yet, the United States, the world’s largest defense manufacturer, seems rattled by India’s rise. When India signs defense deals with other countries like Russia, the U.S. cries foul, accusing India of disloyalty. But the real question is: Why should India trust the U.S. when America has repeatedly failed to deliver on its defense promises? This article exposes the U.S.’s track record of delays, broken commitments, and double standards, showing why India’s growing defense prowess is a threat to American dominance—and why that’s America’s problem, not India’s.
A History of U.S. Defense Delays to India
The United States loves to boast about being a reliable defense partner for India, pushing its high-priced weapons as the gold standard. But when it comes to delivering on promises, the U.S. has left India hanging time and again. From helicopters to drones, critical defense deals have faced delays stretching years past agreed deadlines, forcing India to question America’s commitment. These failures expose the U.S.’s hypocrisy—demanding India’s loyalty while failing to deliver what was promised. Let’s look at the major cases where the U.S. let India down.
- Apache Helicopters: A 10-Year Delay: In September 2015, India signed a $2.5 billion deal with the U.S. for 22 AH-64E Apache attack helicopters for the Indian Army. The contract promised deliveries starting in 2019, with all units expected by 2021. Fast forward to June 2025—10 years later—and not a single helicopter has been delivered. Indian officials have repeatedly raised concerns about production delays and U.S. bureaucratic red tape, while Indian taxpayers foot the bill for equipment that remains a distant dream. Meanwhile, India’s existing fleet, including Russian Mi-35 helicopters, continues to outperform expectations, proving the U.S. isn’t the only game in town.
- MQ-9 Reaper Drones: Promises Unfulfilled: In June 2023, India inked a $3.9 billion deal for 31 MQ-9 Reaper drones to bolster its surveillance along the China and Pakistan borders. The U.S. promised initial deliveries by mid-2024, with the full batch completed by 2026. Yet, by June 2025, only a handful of leased drones have arrived, with the main order stuck in U.S. export control processes. Indian defense analysts have called out these delays as a deliberate tactic to keep India dependent on U.S. goodwill, while India’s indigenous drones, like the DRDO’s Rustom-2, are already filling the gap.
- GE Engines for Tejas: Stalling India’s Pride: India’s homegrown Tejas fighter jet relies on General Electric’s F404 engines, ordered in a 2010 deal for 99 units. The U.S. promised deliveries starting in 2012, with completion by 2016. Instead, deliveries trickled in years late, with some engines arriving only in 2020, hampering Tejas production. A follow-up 2023 deal for GE F414 engines to power the Tejas Mark-2 set a delivery timeline starting in 2025, but as of June 2025, no engines have been delivered, and U.S. manufacturers cite “supply chain issues.” India’s DRDO is now fast-tracking its own engine program, fed up with America’s broken promises.
- Contrast with Russia’s Timeliness: While the U.S. stalls, Russia has proven a reliable partner. India’s 2018 $5.4 billion deal for five S-400 air defense systems had a clear timeline: deliveries starting in 2021 and completed by April 2025. Russia met every deadline, with all units delivered on schedule by early 2025, boosting India’s defense against aerial threats. This stark contrast shows why India trusts partners who deliver, while the U.S.’s empty promises erode its credibility.
Why the U.S. Gets Mad About India’s Russia Deals
When India signed a $5.4 billion deal with Russia for the S-400 system in 2018, the U.S. threatened sanctions under its Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). Trump’s administration, and later Biden’s, grumbled that India’s reliance on Russian weapons undermines U.S.-India ties. But why should India trust a partner that fails to deliver? Here’s why the U.S.’s anger reeks of hypocrisy:
- Double Standards on Defense Partnerships: The U.S. demands India buy American weapons to “strengthen ties,” but when India diversifies its defense suppliers, Washington throws a tantrum. India’s strategic autonomy—its right to choose partners like Russia or France—is a sore point for the U.S., which wants India to be dependent on American systems. Meanwhile, the U.S. has no issue selling advanced weapons to Pakistan, a known supporter of terrorism against India.
- India’s War-Tested Arsenal: India’s defense systems, many developed domestically or with partners like Russia, are battle-hardened. The BrahMos missile, co-developed with Russia, proved its precision in India’s 2025 Operation Sindoor, which crippled terrorist camps in Pakistan. In contrast, U.S.-supplied systems like the F-16, used by Pakistan against India in 2019, have faced criticism for their performance in real combat. India’s homegrown Tejas jets and Arjun tanks have also shown superior adaptability in South Asian conditions compared to some U.S. equipment. This reality unsettles the U.S., which sees India’s growing defense industry as a threat to its global dominance.
- U.S. Fear of India’s Rise: India’s defense manufacturing sector is booming. Companies like Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and Bharat Dynamics are producing world-class jets, missiles, and drones. India’s defense exports reached $2.5 billion in 2024, with countries like Vietnam and the Philippines buying Indian systems. The U.S., which controls 40% of the global arms market, is rattled by India’s rise as a competitor. Trump’s complaints about India’s trade practices often mask this deeper fear: India is becoming too strong, too fast, without U.S. help.
Operation Sindoor: India’s Strength Shakes the U.S.
In May 2025, India launched Operation Sindoor, a swift and decisive military operation that targeted terrorist camps and military infrastructure in Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 people. Within 72 hours, India’s air force and missiles neutralized key targets, showcasing its military prowess. While the U.S. claimed credit for brokering a ceasefire, Indian officials denied any American role, emphasizing that the operation’s success was due to India’s own capabilities.
The operation also debunked myths about Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities. India’s intelligence and precision strikes exposed that Pakistan’s nuclear facilities, often touted as a threat, were heavily reliant on outdated technology and vulnerable to India’s advanced systems. Claims that Pakistan developed its nuclear arsenal independently are questionable, given its long history of receiving U.S. military aid and technology transfers during the Cold War. India’s ability to neutralize these threats in 2025 highlighted its superiority, which the U.S. finds hard to stomach.
Why India Doesn’t Need the U.S.
India’s defense sector is a testament to its self-reliance. Unlike the U.S., which often pushes untested or overpriced systems, India’s weapons are cost-effective and proven in combat. For example:
- BrahMos Missile: Co-developed with Russia, it’s one of the fastest and most accurate supersonic cruise missiles in the world, used effectively in Operation Sindoor.
- Tejas Fighter Jet: India’s homegrown light combat aircraft is cheaper and more versatile than many U.S. jets, tailored for India’s unique terrain.
- DRDO’s Indigenous Systems: From the Agni-V nuclear-capable missile to the Akash air defense system, India’s Defense Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has built a robust arsenal that rivals global standards.
The U.S.’s delays and arm-twisting tactics only push India to strengthen ties with reliable partners like Russia and France, who deliver on time and respect India’s autonomy. The U.S.’s hypocrisy—demanding loyalty while failing to deliver—shows it’s more concerned about maintaining its dominance than building a true partnership with India.
Part 3 – U.S. Support for Pakistan: A History of Backstabbing India
For decades, the United States has claimed to be India’s strategic partner, but its actions tell a different story. While India has worked to build a fair and cooperative relationship, the U.S. has repeatedly supported Pakistan, a country notorious for sponsoring terrorism against India. From arming Pakistan with advanced weapons to offering diplomatic cover, the U.S. has a long history of backstabbing India in politics, trade, and security. This article traces this betrayal from the Cold War to the present, with a focus on events since 2014, exposing how the U.S.’s double-dealing undermines its credibility as India’s ally.
The Cold War: Setting the Stage for Betrayal
The U.S.-Pakistan alliance began in the 1950s, when America saw Pakistan as a counterweight to Soviet influence in South Asia. This marked the start of a pattern that would haunt India for decades:
- 1950s Military Aid: The U.S. poured billions in military aid into Pakistan under the Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement, providing tanks, aircraft, and weapons. These were often used against India, particularly in the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pak wars.
- Nuclear Blind Spot: In the 1980s, the U.S. turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear program, despite evidence of its development with Chinese help. Meanwhile, India faced U.S. sanctions for its own nuclear tests in 1998, exposing America’s selective outrage.
- Afghan War Support: During the Soviet-Afghan War (1979–1989), the U.S. funneled $3 billion in aid and weapons to Pakistan, much of which was used to arm militants who later targeted India in Kashmir.
Post-2014: U.S. Backstabbing Intensifies
Since 2014, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership, India has sought to deepen ties with the U.S., hoping for a genuine partnership. But the U.S. has continued to prioritize Pakistan, undermining India at every turn:
- F-16 Sales to Pakistan (2016): In 2016, the U.S. approved a $700 million deal to sell eight F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, despite India’s protests. These jets were used by Pakistan against India during the 2019 Balakot airstrike, when Pakistan attempted to counter India’s response to the Pulwama terror attack. Indian forces shot down a Pakistani F-16, proving India’s superiority, but the U.S.’s decision to arm Pakistan was a clear betrayal.
- U.S. Support During Kargil War (1999, Context for 2014+): While not post-2014, the Kargil War set a precedent for U.S. bias. During the 1999 conflict, the U.S. refused to share critical Google Earth coordinates with India, hindering its operations against Pakistani intruders. This memory lingers, with X posts in 2025 citing it as evidence of U.S. unreliability.
- IMF Bailouts for Pakistan (2019–2025): The U.S. has repeatedly backed International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans to Pakistan, including a $7 billion package in 2024. India has long argued that these funds indirectly fuel Pakistan’s terrorism infrastructure, as its military diverts aid to anti-India activities. Yet, the U.S. continues to support these bailouts, ignoring India’s concerns.
- Operation Sindoor and U.S. Hypocrisy (2025): After India’s successful Operation Sindoor in May 2025, which targeted terror camps in Pakistan, the U.S. claimed credit for brokering a ceasefire. Indian officials, including External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, denied any U.S. role, stating the ceasefire was negotiated directly between Indian and Pakistani military commanders. Worse, the U.S. offered to mediate on Kashmir, a move India rejected as crossing its red line of bilateral talks only. Trump’s Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick even claimed trade incentives influenced the ceasefire, a claim India dismissed as baseless. This incident highlighted the U.S.’s tendency to insert itself into India-Pakistan issues while siding with Pakistan.
- Continued Military Aid to Pakistan: In 2024, the U.S. approved a $2.4 billion military aid package for Pakistan, with reports suggesting a potential $40 billion grant under discussion in 2025. This aid includes upgrades to Pakistan’s F-16 fleet, which directly threatens India’s security. X posts from June 2025 reflect Indian anger, accusing the U.S. of arming a terrorist state while delaying India’s own defense deliveries.
U.S. Trade Hypocrisy: A Parallel Betrayal
The U.S.’s double standards extend beyond defense to trade, where it has consistently pressured India while ignoring its own protectionist policies:
- GSP Revocation (2019): In 2019, Trump revoked India’s status under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), which allowed duty-free exports of $5.6 billion in Indian goods to the U.S. The move was seen as punishment for India’s high tariffs, yet the U.S. imposed its own tariffs on Indian steel and aluminum in 2018, showing its hypocrisy.
- Labeling India a “Tariff King”: Since 2014, Trump has repeatedly called India a “tariff abuser,” ignoring that India’s tariffs (averaging 17%) are within WTO limits and protect a developing economy of 1.4 billion people. Meanwhile, the U.S.’s own tariffs, like the 25% on steel, are justified as “national security,” but India’s similar measures are labeled unfair.
- Ignoring India’s Service Sector: The U.S. focuses on its $45.7 billion goods trade deficit with India in 2024 but ignores India’s $30 billion in service exports, like IT and software, which benefit American companies. This selective narrative paints India as a trade villain while downplaying mutual benefits.
Part 4 – Why the U.S. Supports Pakistan
For decades, the United States has propped up Pakistan with billions in aid, weapons, and diplomatic support, even though Pakistan is a known hub for terrorism against India. Why does the U.S. keep backing a country that fuels instability in South Asia? The answer lies in America’s selfish geopolitical goals, treating Pakistan as a tool to control the region. From using Pakistan as a proxy against India to securing its strategic ports, the U.S. sees Pakistan as a private colony to dominate the East. Pakistan is like a doggie of US and China. This section breaks down the real reasons behind this toxic alliance and how it betrays India.
A Tool for U.S. Geopolitical Games
The U.S. has long used Pakistan as a pawn to advance its interests in Asia, often at India’s expense. Since the Cold War, America has exploited Pakistan’s location and military to achieve its goals, ignoring its role in sponsoring terrorism.
- Cold War Beginnings: In the 1950s, the U.S. saw Pakistan as a buffer against the Soviet Union. Through deals like the 1954 Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement, America poured weapons and money into Pakistan, which were later used against India in the 1965 and 1971 wars. This set a pattern: arm Pakistan to serve U.S. interests, even if it meant arming India’s enemy.
- Afghanistan and the Soviet Invasion: During the Soviet-Afghan War (1979–1989), the U.S. funneled over $3 billion in aid and weapons through Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to arm Afghan mujahideen. These weapons, including Stinger missiles, often ended up with terrorists targeting India, especially in Kashmir. The U.S. turned a blind eye, prioritizing its fight against the Soviets over India’s security.
- Post-2014 Support: Since 2014, the U.S. has continued to arm Pakistan, despite its terror links. In 2016, the U.S. approved a $700 million deal for eight F-16 jets, which Pakistan used against India in the 2019 Balakot clash. In 2024, the U.S. greenlit a $2.4 billion military aid package, with talks of a $40 billion grant in 2025. These weapons strengthen Pakistan’s ability to threaten India, showing the U.S. prioritizes its own agenda over India’s safety.
Pakistan as a U.S. Private Colony
The U.S. treats Pakistan like a private colony, controlling its strategic assets to dominate the East. This includes Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and key military bases, which serve American interests more than Pakistan’s.
- U.S. Control Over Nukes: Pakistan’s estimated 170 nuclear warheads are heavily influenced by the U.S. The U.S. has funded Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division (SPD) and provided Permissive Action Links (PALs) to secure its nukes, giving America significant oversight. When India’s Operation Sindoor struck Nur Khan airbase in May 2025, near the SPD in Rawalpindi, the U.S. panicked. The base’s proximity to Pakistan’s nuclear command raised fears of damage to U.S.-monitored assets. Reports of 19 tremors in Pakistan over 2–3 days after the strike—likely tests to check nuclear warheads—suggest the damage was far worse than Pakistan admits. The U.S.-brokered ceasefire on May 10 was less about peace and more about assessing and possibly relocating these assets to protect American interests.
- Nur Khan and U.S. Influence: Pakistani analysts have claimed that Nur Khan airbase, a key target in Operation Sindoor, is effectively under U.S. control, with even Pakistani officers restricted from interfering. This suggests the U.S. uses Pakistan’s military infrastructure as a forward base to monitor the region, treating it as a colony to project power.
Strategic Location: Afghanistan, Iran, and Central Asia
Pakistan’s geography makes it a vital pawn for the U.S. to control key regions, often to India’s detriment.
- Geographical Proximity to Afghanistan and Central Asia: Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan makes it a gateway for U.S. operations in the region. Since the 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan has provided bases, like those near Karachi, for American surveillance aircraft like the P-3 Orion. This allows the U.S. to monitor Central Asia, a resource-rich region. In 2025, X posts noted that Pakistan remains a U.S. asset to counter Russian and Chinese influence in Afghanistan, even as it destabilizes India.
- Geographical Proximity to Iran: Pakistan’s Balochistan province shares a 900-km border with Iran, making it a strategic outpost for the U.S. to keep tabs on Iran, a longtime adversary. Balochistan’s proximity to Iran’s Chabahar port, which India is developing, adds another layer: the U.S. uses Pakistan to counter India’s growing influence in the region. By arming Pakistan, the U.S. indirectly pressures both Iran and India.
Islamist Radicalization as a Weapon
The U.S. has long exploited Pakistan’s role in fostering Islamist militancy to serve its own ends, even when it harms India.
- U.S. and China’s Proxy Games: Both the U.S. and China use Pakistan to check India’s rise. When India grows too strong or assertive, the U.S. or China can nudge Pakistan to orchestrate terror attacks. For example, the 2019 Pulwama attack, which killed 40 Indian soldiers, was linked to Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). In return, Pakistan demands funds, fighter jets, or weapons, which come via U.S. aid, IMF loans, or allies like Turkey and Qatar. Since 2014, the U.S. has backed $7 billion in IMF bailouts for Pakistan, despite India’s warnings that these funds indirectly fuel terrorism.
- Post-2014 Terror Support: After the 2016 Uri attack and 2019 Pulwama attack, India provided evidence of Pakistan’s terror links to the U.S., but Washington continued to arm Pakistan. Operation Sindoor in 2025, which targeted JeM and Lashkar-e-Taiba bases, exposed Pakistan’s terror infrastructure, yet the U.S. claimed credit for the ceasefire, ignoring Pakistan’s role in the initial Pahalgam attack that killed 26 civilians.
A Mercenary Army for Hire
Pakistan’s military acts like a mercenary force, ready to do the bidding of the highest bidder—whether the U.S., China, or Gulf states. This makes it a convenient tool for the U.S. to stir trouble without getting its hands dirty.
- Proxy for U.S. Interests: X posts in 2025 describe Pakistan as a “low-cost, high-yield asset” for the U.S., used to agitate India, Iran, and Central Asia. For a few billion dollars, the U.S. gains a ready-made army to carry out covert operations, like destabilizing India through terror attacks or pressuring Iran via Balochistan.
- Post-2014 Examples: Since 2014, Pakistan has received U.S. aid and weapons, like the 2016 F-16 deal, while continuing to harbor terrorists targeting India. The U.S. turns a blind eye, as Pakistan’s actions align with America’s goal of keeping India in check.
Control Over Strategic Sea Ports
Pakistan’s ports, Karachi and Gwadar, are critical to U.S. and Chinese interests, making Pakistan a key asset in maritime strategy.
- Karachi Port: Karachi, Pakistan’s largest port, has hosted U.S. naval assets, like the USS Kitty Hawk in 1987, and supports U.S. surveillance operations in the Arabian Sea. Since 2014, the U.S. has pushed for access to Karachi to monitor key shipping lanes near the Persian Gulf, often ignoring Pakistan’s terror links to secure this access.
- Gwadar Port and China’s Role: Gwadar, part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), is a deep-water port operated by China since 2013. While China controls Gwadar, the U.S. keeps Pakistan close to monitor this strategic hub, just 170 km from India’s Chabahar port. The U.S.’s support for Pakistan ensures influence over Gwadar’s operations, countering India’s regional maritime ambitions.
Other Reasons
Countering China: The U.S. sees Pakistan as a tool to counter China’s influence in South Asia, especially through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). By arming Pakistan, the U.S. hopes to maintain leverage, even if it means ignoring Pakistan’s role in terrorism.
Afghanistan Legacy: The U.S. relies on Pakistan for access to Afghanistan, a priority since the 2001 invasion. This has led to billions in aid, despite evidence that Pakistan harbors terrorists targeting India and Afghanistan.
Historical Bias: Since the Cold War, the U.S. has viewed Pakistan as a “frontline state” against communism and later terrorism, while treating India with suspicion due to its non-aligned stance and ties with Russia. This bias persists, with the U.S. equating India and Pakistan despite their vastly different records on terrorism.
The Bigger Picture: Betraying India
The U.S.’s support for Pakistan isn’t about friendship—it’s about using Pakistan as a tool to control the East. By arming Pakistan, funding its nukes, and leveraging its ports and borders, the U.S. maintains a grip on South Asia while keeping India in check. Operation Sindoor’s strike on Nur Khan exposed this dynamic, forcing the U.S. to intervene to protect its assets, not to promote peace. India’s rise—economically, militarily, and diplomatically—threatens this control, and the U.S.’s continued backing of Pakistan is a desperate attempt to cling to influence. But India’s strength, shown in its decisive actions and growing global alliances, proves it doesn’t need the U.S. to thrive.
India’s Resilience: Rising Above U.S. Betrayal
Despite U.S. backstabbing, India has thrived since 2014. Its economy grew from $2 trillion in 2014 to $3.9 trillion in 2024, and its defense capabilities have soared. Operation Sindoor proved India’s military can act decisively without U.S. support. India’s strategic partnerships with Russia, France, and others ensure it doesn’t need to rely on an unreliable America. The U.S.’s support for Pakistan and its delays in defense deliveries only strengthen India’s resolve to prioritize self-reliance through initiatives like Make in India.
The U.S.’s hypocrisy—arming Pakistan, delaying India’s deliveries, and crying foul over India’s tariffs—reveals its true priority: maintaining global dominance, not fostering a fair partnership. India’s rise, built on its own terms, is a wake-up call for America. If the U.S. wants to be a true ally, it must stop backstabbing India and start respecting its strength.
Also Read:
