Pakistan’s Repeat of the Dangerous Game: Exploiting Terrorism to Gain Favor with Trump

Pakistan’s long and well-documented history of playing both sides in the so-called “war on terror” has once again come to the forefront. Recent incidents, such as the handing over of a Kabul blast plotter to the U.S., the reported death of Lashkar-e-Islam founder Mufti Shakir, and the deadly train attack claimed by the Baloch Liberation Army, demonstrate how Pakistan selectively engages in counterterrorism efforts when it suits its strategic interests. These events are not isolated incidents but calculated moves designed to rehabilitate Pakistan’s image in the eyes of Washington—particularly with the Trump administration, which has been known for its transactional foreign policy approach.

A Convenient Handshake with the U.S.

Pakistan’s decision to extradite a key Kabul blast plotter to the United States was immediately met with praise from former U.S. President Donald Trump. This pattern is all too familiar: Pakistan harbors and nurtures terrorist networks within its borders, only to turn over select figures to the U.S. in moments of diplomatic need. This is not a newfound strategy—it is a recurring tactic Pakistan uses to maintain a relationship with the U.S. while continuing its proxy warfare in the region.

But why was this Kabul blast terrorist conveniently found now? How long had he been in Pakistan’s custody, or at the very least, under their surveillance? The Pakistani intelligence apparatus, notorious for its deep infiltration into terrorist networks, suddenly “discovering” and handing over a key terrorist raises serious questions. Was he protected until the right moment arrived? Was he being used as a pawn to reestablish favor with Washington? The timing suggests that Pakistan is attempting to leverage this move to regain its image as a U.S. ally in counterterrorism—just when it faces increasing scrutiny over its ties to extremist groups. The Trump administration’s quick praise for this action only emboldens Pakistan’s longstanding tactic of selective counterterrorism, ensuring that future militants can be used as bargaining chips rather than being genuinely eliminated.

For years, Pakistan has been a haven for terrorist organizations, from the Taliban to Lashkar-e-Taiba, while simultaneously positioning itself as a victim of terrorism. The U.S. intelligence community is well aware of the double game Pakistan plays—sheltering and supporting terror groups while seeking Western aid and military assistance under the guise of counterterrorism cooperation.

The Illusion of a Crackdown

The death of Lashkar-e-Islam’s Mufti Shakir in a bomb blast has been portrayed by Pakistan as a sign of its tough stance on militancy. However, history shows that such eliminations often serve a dual purpose: to eliminate inconvenient or uncontrollable militant leaders while publicly showcasing Pakistan’s supposed commitment to fighting terrorism.

Mufti Shakir’s group, Lashkar-e-Islam, has had deep-rooted connections with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and has been used for proxy wars, particularly in Afghanistan. However, in recent times, Mufti Shakir had turned against the Pakistani government and had made strong statements denouncing its policies. He had declared, “My grandfathers have been Afghans since 6000 years ago,” highlighting his rejection of Pakistan’s claim over Pashtun identity. He further invoked historical justice by citing the words of Khalifa Omar, stating, “The Khalifat Omar had stated if someone is killed and his killer is not found, the state is the responsible party in that killing, and in Pakistan where hundreds of thousands of women and children of Pukhtons have been killed in the last few decades, the Pakistan state is the responsible party in their killings.” These remarks likely contributed to his demise, as Pakistan has a history of silencing dissenting voices, particularly those who challenge its policies in the Pashtun regions.

Chaos in Balochistan: A Convenient Excuse for Repression

The train attack in Balochistan, claimed by the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), underscores the growing insurgency in the province. The Pakistani military has long used such attacks as a justification to crack down on the Baloch population, branding any resistance as terrorism. Yet, the reality is that Pakistan’s oppressive policies in Balochistan—marked by disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and economic exploitation—have fueled the insurgency in the first place.

The Pakistani establishment’s response to such incidents typically follows a predictable pattern: leverage the chaos to consolidate power, ramp up military operations under the guise of counterinsurgency, and use selective counterterrorism efforts to gain international favor, particularly from the United States.

Pakistan’s Strategy: Appeasement and Manipulation

Pakistan has consistently used terrorism as a bargaining chip. It allows militant networks to thrive, only to rein them in when diplomatic necessity arises. The recent wave of events demonstrates how Pakistan is once again attempting to reintroduce itself as a key ally in the fight against terrorism—a narrative that has repeatedly been exposed as a sham.

Many analysts in the region and globally recognize this ploy for what it is: an attempt to regain favor with Washington, particularly with the Trump administration, which has previously shown a willingness to overlook Pakistan’s double game in exchange for short-term counterterrorism cooperation. But history has taught us that Pakistan’s so-called “crackdowns” never last; they are temporary, tactical moves designed to ensure continued financial and military support from the U.S.

The Cost of Ignoring the Obvious

If Washington falls for Pakistan’s latest display of counterterrorism theatrics, it will once again embolden the very networks that continue to destabilize South Asia. The U.S. must not reward Pakistan’s manipulative strategies with military aid or diplomatic concessions. Instead, it should hold Pakistan accountable for its deep-rooted ties to terrorism and demand real, verifiable action—not just the selective handing over of a few expendable militants.

Pakistan’s double-dealing on terrorism is no secret. What remains to be seen is whether the U.S., and specifically Trump, will once again buy into the illusion—or finally call Pakistan out for what it truly is: a state that thrives on instability, using terrorism as a strategic tool while pretending to fight it.

The Incompetence Failure of Ashraf Ghani vs. The Resilience of Volodymyr Zelenskyy: A Case Study in Failed and Successful Leadership