During Pakistani Army Chief General Asim Munir’s high-profile visit to the United States, former Pentagon official and American Enterprise Institute senior scholar Michael Rubin gave a sharp condemnation of both Pakistan’s regional behavior and US President Donald Trump’s attitude to Islamabad.
In a series of interviews and declarations, Rubin accused Pakistan of insincerity, double-dealing, and manipulating diplomatic involvement with the US for its own gain, particularly immunity and financial help.
Rubin rejected the current diplomatic courtesies as “rhetoric,” claiming that “everyone sees Pakistan for what it is, except perhaps Donald Trump.” He stated that Trump’s apparent overtures to Pakistan are transactional, driven by US interests in regional security, particularly Iran’s nuclear program and the larger Israel-Iran confrontation.
According to Rubin, any US plan including infiltration of Iran or the management of Iranian nuclear materials after the fight may necessitate Pakistani collaboration, which he sees skeptically.
He went on to suggest that Pakistan’s interests already overlap with those of the United States in terms of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, calling into question the logic of incentivizing Islamabad to act against Tehran. “If that’s the case, we shouldn’t pay Pakistan a single dollar for achieving what’s in Pakistan’s own interests,” Rubin said, pointing to a pattern in which Pakistan “pretends to partner with the US to gain immunity and financial benefits” while pursuing its own agenda.
Rubin criticized Trump personally, citing the past president’s love for military leaders and claiming that Trump’s willingness to interact with Munir demonstrates a lack of diplomatic finesse and a desire for personal legacy, including hopes for the Nobel Peace Prize. Rubin said that Trump’s rhetoric risks putting US security ahead of personal objectives, and that relying on Pakistan in any anti-Iran strategy would be a dangerous repeat of previous policy failures.
He also described Pakistan as a “terrorist state” that is afraid of accountability, accusing it of employing terrorism as a tool of statecraft and attempting to dodge penalties by cultivating a transactional relationship with the US. Rubin called on the United States to formally name Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism and urged India to prioritize its own security needs over Washington’s advise, emphasizing bipartisan support for India in Congress and rising dissatisfaction with Pakistan’s behavior.
Rubin’s remarks coincided with visible rallies by Pakistanis living abroad against General Munir in Washington, D.C., expressing larger dissatisfaction with Pakistan’s military leadership and domestic record.
Analysts saw the visit, which included discussions at the White House and high-level talks at the State Department and Pentagon, as part of Islamabad’s effort to rebalance its relationship with Washington in the face of evolving regional dynamics and increased strategic alignment between the US and India.
Michael Rubin’s commentary reflects a growing skepticism in US policy circles about Pakistan’s reliability as a partner, particularly under Trump’s leadership, and emphasizes the transactional and often fraught nature of US-Pakistan relations in the context of evolving regional security challenges.
