Washington Between Kabul and Islamabad

Washington Between Kabul and Islamabad:
The Silent Administration and Its Strategic Costs

Understanding the U.S. stance on the recent Pakistani–Afghan escalation requires examining the structural shift that reshaped Afghanistan’s role in American strategy following the 2021 military withdrawal. Since then, Afghanistan has ceased to be a theater of direct U.S. military presence, yet it retains functional importance in regional balance calculations particularly in the context of strategic competition with China and Russia and in preventing a geopolitical vacuum that rival powers might exploit.
In this framework, civilian casualties resulting from Pakistani strikes carry significant weight, touching the core of international legitimacy. Major international media outlets, including Al Jazeera and the Associated Press, have documented such casualties, placing Washington in a position where it must balance its relationship with Islamabad against its stated commitment to civilian protection and international humanitarian law.
The U.S. response avoided explicit condemnation. This silence coincided with high-level political engagement between Washington and Islamabad, suggesting that the restraint carries implications beyond customary diplomatic caution. Many Afghan intellectuals and analysts interpret this as implicit approval or at least a lack of effective objection that could have served as a diplomatic deterrent.
The Illusion of Strategic Partnership
Labeling the U.S.–Pakistan relationship as a “strategic partnership” reflects diplomatic rhetoric rather than reality. Serious analysts from Bruce Riedel at Brookings to Husain Haqqani, former Pakistani ambassador to Washington—agree that Islamabad has historically pursued a documented double game: accepting billions under the guise of counterterrorism while simultaneously providing safe havens for groups targeted by Washington. The killing of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, just meters from a Pakistani military academy, underscored this reality.
The relationship is defined by recurring, situational convergence rather than a shared strategic vision. Washington leveraged Pakistan as a tool in Afghanistan, while Pakistan leveraged Washington for funding and international cover. Each side understood the other’s duplicity and tolerated it, as alternatives appeared worse in the short term. This insight reframes the analysis: if the partnership is primarily tactical, then “preserving it” does not represent a strategic value but merely postpones structural contradictions. The U.S. reluctance to condemn Pakistani strikes thus reflects limited alternatives and short-term thinking rather than a strong alliance, while Islamabad continues to benefit from a strategy that has historically rewarded duplicity, with Afghanistan bearing the greatest cost.
The Complex Strategic Dilemma
Washington faces a dual challenge. Pressuring Pakistan publicly risks undermining a relationship that still has functional value. Ignoring Afghan grievances, however, may drive Kabul to strengthen ties with alternative global powers. This trend is already apparent in Afghanistan’s expanding economic cooperation with China in mining, increased engagement with Russia, and participation in regional frameworks led by Moscow and Beijing.
Complicating matters further, Washington risks losing influence over Pakistan itself. Islamabad has diversified its partnerships and deepened its ties with China, raising the prospect of diminished U.S. influence across the region.
The Mediation Gap and Diplomatic Vacuum
The escalation exposes a clear diplomatic vacuum, with no effective mediation mechanisms to contain tensions before they escalate militarily. Regional organizations, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, face structural limitations that reduce their ability to mediate effectively, while the UN’s influence remains constrained when dealing with parties operating outside binding agreements.
Here lies a fundamental paradox: Washington possesses leverage over Islamabad but refrains from using it to create a clear diplomatic initiative, opting instead for cautious, reactive engagement. This restraint is interpreted in regional capitals as a decline in American diplomatic will. The void left by Washington is unlikely to remain empty and may be filled by initiatives from Moscow or Beijing.
Redefining the American Role
This escalation tests American strategic doctrine in the post-withdrawal era. Washington has shifted from direct control to indirect management of regional balances, relying on local actors to maintain minimal stability. While this reduces direct military costs, it also diminishes U.S. capacity to regulate its partners’ behavior and limit escalation. The United States now functions less as a guarantor and more as a partially influential observer.
The danger of this shift is that regional actors operate according to their own interests, assuming that U.S. intervention is unlikely, which may gradually erode American influence in favor of regional arrangements increasingly shaped by emerging Eurasian powers.
Ultimately, the Pakistani–Afghan escalation is not merely a border dispute; it represents a test of regional balance and America’s ability to maintain relevance during a transitional phase of the international system. Washington’s continued restraint does not protect a strategic partnership but reinforces a pattern of behavior that has long proven costly, leaving a critical question unresolved: will the United States remain a decisive actor in regional affairs, or will it be relegated to a limited-influence role in a steadily emerging multipolar world?

Our Pashto-Dari Website

  Donate Here