- 2 days ago
In this episode of India First, the focus is on the Pakistani Army Chief's nuclear threats against India, delivered from United States soil. The development raises serious questions about the state of the India-US comprehensive strategic partnership, particularly given the silence from the Trump administration.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00So let's try and make sense of his rants.
00:02Joining me on India first, Ambassador Vivek Kaju,
00:05former Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs,
00:07has been our ambassador to Afghanistan,
00:08has served extensively on the Pakistan-Iran-Afghanistan desk
00:12in the Ministry of External Affairs.
00:13Lieutenant General Satish Dua is former Kashmir Corps Commander,
00:16also former Chief of the Integrated Defence Staff.
00:19Joining me from the United States is Dr. Max Abrahams,
00:22Associate Professor of Public Policy and Political Science
00:25at the Northeastern University, joins us from Boston.
00:27Also with me is my colleague and senior journalist, Sandeep Unnithan.
00:33Ambassador Kaju, U.S. is our comprehensive strategic partner,
00:38but not a whisper from the U.S.
00:40when Pakistan using U.S. soil,
00:44it resorts to this nuclear saber-rattling against India.
00:49What does this indicate, sir?
00:50Well, I would think that India should lodge a very strong diplomatic protest
01:02to the State Department for the remarks made by the field marshal
01:10and say that we expect that the State Department
01:16and the U.S. administration will not only take note,
01:20but will condemn these remarks.
01:23If the U.S. still does not do it,
01:26then we must derive the correct lessons
01:30about the state of India-U.S. relations
01:33and U.S.-Pakistan relations at this stage.
01:39That is the first thing that is required to be done diplomatically.
01:45Munir was speaking to an audience of Pakistani expatriates.
01:50He spoke in a manner which was completely political,
01:55which is not surprising because Pakistani army
01:58is both a political and a professional force.
02:03But it was bizarre because he went into a realm
02:10which a responsible army chief never does.
02:19In fact, in my memory,
02:22while Pakistan has often alluded to nuclear threats,
02:28but Pakistani army chiefs have been very careful
02:31in using their words,
02:34Munir obviously does not belong to that tradition.
02:38And we must take note of this.
02:41We can't ignore this
02:44because Munir at the moment is supreme in Pakistan
02:48but at the same time,
02:53having said that he is supreme in Pakistan,
02:56he is ironically feeling insecure domestically
03:00because despite everything that he has done to Imran,
03:05Imran Khan has been in jail for over two years,
03:09but Imran still retains a measure of popularity in Punjab
03:14and that is the province in Pakistan that matters.
03:18You know what actually hurts at this stage
03:20is the fact that US being a comprehensive strategic partner
03:23has been completely silent.
03:25Last time Aasem Munir ranted against India,
03:28it was followed up, Dr. Max Abrahams,
03:30by the Pehalgaam terror attack.
03:33And the way we've seen US act or didn't act,
03:37what explains in your view the US silence
03:41when India, a comprehensive strategic partner,
03:46is threatened with a nuclear attack from US soil, Dr. Abrahams?
03:50I really can't fully explain it.
03:55I'll just say that I, you know, voted for Trump
04:00and I'm also very pro-India
04:05and very pro-US-India relations.
04:10And during his presidential campaign,
04:13I very publicly said that
04:16I thought that US-India relations
04:19under a second Trump administration would improve.
04:23I thought this for a number of reasons,
04:26particularly because the Trump administration,
04:29at least rhetorically,
04:31really emphasizes the importance
04:34of containing China in the Pacific.
04:37And so it was my understanding
04:39that India and stronger US-India relations
04:43was going to be a very important part
04:46of that containment strategy.
04:49But this hasn't played out the way I expected.
04:54There's a certain coldness to US-India relations
04:58and a surprising warmth
05:01between the US and Pakistan.
05:04You know, this is the story of the day
05:07and it's an important one,
05:08but we could go back a week
05:10or two weeks or three weeks.
05:11And I think that we're really looking at a trend
05:15where US-India relations under this administration
05:19are simply not as strong
05:22as we all hoped and expected.
05:24And US-Pakistani relations
05:26seem to be moving forward.
05:29But I can't pretend that I have all the answers
05:32to explain that
05:33because frankly, I've been surprised by it
05:37and disappointed.
05:38Indeed.
05:40In fact, we're all very disappointed
05:42the manner in which this is panning out.
05:46And I'm actually going to quote you
05:48what Trump said in his first term
05:50and how he's behaving in his second term.
05:52But General Dua,
05:53are you surprised
05:54by the rants of Aasem Munir
05:57and the fact that it's happening
05:58in Tampa, Florida?
06:00I mean, how dare a military officer
06:02use US territory
06:04to threaten a democracy
06:05and at a time when India and US
06:07is supposed to be
06:08such close strategic partners?
06:10Or does this actually prove
06:12as many in India
06:14have argued over decades
06:16that US,
06:17especially now under Donald Trump,
06:19is a very unreliable,
06:21comprehensive strategic partner?
06:25Gaurav,
06:26the short answer to your question
06:28that are you surprised
06:29that he said this?
06:30The short answer is no.
06:31Well, let me expand on that.
06:35Because
06:35the Pakistan army chief
06:40is known to have
06:41made some baseless rants in the past.
06:44Four days before
06:45the Pahlgan terror attack took place,
06:47the kind of speech that he made,
06:50he spoke about the two-nation theory,
06:52talking about religions,
06:53India is,
06:54Kashmir is a jugular vein.
06:55I mean, what baseless talk it was.
06:57But then it was followed up
06:59by a terrorist carnage.
07:01in Pahlgan.
07:02And then we know
07:03what happened,
07:03Operation Sindhu followed.
07:05Now, but now,
07:07I think
07:08why he's spoken from there
07:10is on one hand
07:12is his insecurities
07:13at home.
07:15Mr. Kaju brought that out
07:16very well.
07:17And on the other hand,
07:19I think he's emboldened
07:20by the growing warmth
07:22between US and Pakistan.
07:23and the fact that
07:26in the Trump administration,
07:28we are seeing
07:29some such kind of statements,
07:31facts,
07:31and attitudes
07:32coming out of the US as well.
07:34And it has emboldened him
07:36to speak
07:37the way he spoke.
07:39You know,
07:40when you talk about
07:41India and US
07:43being a strategic
07:44partnership relationship
07:46between us
07:46and why
07:47Asim Muneer
07:49should choose
07:50to speak from there,
07:52don't forget that
07:53while
07:54US was searching
07:55for Osama bin Laden
07:57for 10 years,
07:58eventually he was found
07:59in Pakistan.
08:00So,
08:01Pakistan is known
08:03to have
08:03that kind of
08:04dynamic
08:06and
08:07I think
08:08they've really played
08:09the US very well
08:10because despite
08:11whatever they do,
08:12they keep continuing
08:13to get support
08:14from the US.
08:16But
08:17on one hand,
08:19while we should not
08:19take it lightly
08:20what he said,
08:22on the other hand,
08:23you know,
08:24the list of
08:24slew of measures
08:25that Mr. Kaju
08:26has listed out
08:27must be taken.
08:28India should be
08:29on its guard
08:30but
08:31we must also
08:32understand
08:32that his
08:33insecurities
08:34I'm going to
08:34end with this,
08:35his insecurities
08:36stem from the fact
08:38that we have
08:39called their
08:40nuclear bluff
08:40not once,
08:41not twice,
08:42but thrice
08:42if you take
08:43the surgical strike,
08:44the balakot strike
08:45and the operations
08:46endure
08:46and now
08:47that's what
08:48he wants to
08:48reinforce.
08:50I completely agree
08:51with you
08:51but his insecurities
08:53are followed up
08:54by a terror attack
08:55and Sandeep,
08:57you know,
08:58US calling
08:58Pakistan
08:59a phenomenal
09:00partner in
09:01the war
09:01on terror
09:02is actually
09:03cringeworthy.
09:04Pakistan
09:05as you know
09:06Jal Dua also
09:06very rightly
09:07pointed out
09:08was shielding
09:08Osama bin Laden
09:09barely 100 meters
09:11from Pakistan
09:12military academy
09:13at Karkul
09:13in Abbottabad.
09:15So 9-11 terror
09:16and Dr. Max
09:17Ibrahim can correct
09:18me,
09:19close to 3000
09:20people lost
09:21their lives
09:21in America.
09:22Link back
09:23to an Osama bin
09:24Laden found
09:25in Abbottabad.
09:26look at
09:27Pakistan's
09:28double game
09:28in Afghanistan
09:29where more than
09:302700 American lives
09:32were lost
09:32over 20 years.
09:34Again,
09:35Pakistan stabbed
09:35US in the back.
09:37So that's Pakistan
09:38phenomenally stabbing
09:39US in the back
09:40and US calling them
09:41a phenomenal partner.
09:43Just how myopic
09:44are the Americans,
09:45Sandeep?
09:46Absolutely,
09:46Gaurav.
09:47There's no two ways
09:48about it.
09:49The Americans
09:49have been extremely
09:50myopic
09:50when it comes to
09:52having Pakistan
09:53as an ally
09:53or so-called
09:54ally on the
09:54war on terror.
09:55Pakistan has been
09:56running with
09:57the hares
09:58and hunting
09:59with the hounds
09:59so to speak
10:00in this war
10:02on terror.
10:02But you know
10:03the thing about
10:04General Munir's
10:04statement,
10:05Gaurav,
10:06is that
10:06it's not an
10:07empty threat
10:08because there are
10:09eight nuclear
10:10armed countries
10:11in the world
10:12and there is
10:13only one
10:13where the military
10:14directly controls
10:15nuclear weapons
10:16and that is
10:17Pakistan.
10:18General Munir
10:18is the man
10:19with his finger
10:19on the nuclear
10:20button
10:20and that is
10:21why the world
10:22must worry
10:22including the
10:23United States
10:24and let's not
10:24forget Gaurav
10:25that in this
10:25war on terror
10:26you had this
10:27prospect of a
10:28Pakistani nuclear
10:30scientist who
10:31was talking to
10:32Al-Qaeda,
10:32Sultan Bashiruddin
10:33Mahmood,
10:34whose son today
10:35heads the
10:36DGISPR.
10:37Pakistan has been
10:38the world's
10:38number one
10:39proliferator of
10:40nuclear weapons.
10:41Pakistani
10:42blueprints have
10:43been found as
10:43far as North Korea
10:44and Libya.
10:45They are nuclear
10:46arms traffickers.
10:47They are a global
10:48migraine and that
10:49is the reason that
10:50the world must
10:50worry from this
10:51statement.
10:52It is not just
10:52directed at India
10:54Gaurav, it is
10:54directed at the
10:55rest of the
10:56world.
10:56Who knows, with
10:57this kind of
10:58statements, the
10:58rhetoric, the
10:59rants that
11:00General Aasim
11:01Munir has been
11:01making, he could
11:02possibly be
11:03signalling a
11:04return to the
11:05Pakistan of the
11:061990s and early
11:072000s where it
11:08was one of the
11:09world's largest, it
11:10was a global
11:11migraine Gaurav.
11:12The United States
11:13was doing business
11:14with them only
11:15because of this
11:16war on terror and
11:17now it seems that
11:18Munir is emboldened
11:19by this pro-Pakistan
11:22tilt in the United
11:23States which is why
11:24he is saying and
11:24doing what he is
11:25doing right now,
11:26Gaurav.
11:27Ambassador Karju, in
11:28that case, what
11:29should India's
11:30options be because
11:31let's get to the
11:33substance of what
11:34Aasim Munir said
11:35apart from the
11:35nuke thread.
11:36He's talked about
11:37attacking India from
11:38the east, moving to
11:39the west.
11:40He's talked about
11:41attacking a top
11:42Indian industrialist.
11:43He's talking about
11:44taking half the
11:45world down.
11:46He's desperately
11:47raising the
11:48nuclear bogey after
11:50Prime Minister
11:51Narendra Modi and
11:52External Affairs
11:53Minister Dr.
11:53Jai Shankar and
11:54the entire government
11:55made it very clear
11:55India had exposed
11:57Pakistan's nuclear
11:58rant, bogey and
12:00carried out these
12:01attacks as General
12:03Dua pointed out.
12:03Three attacks
12:04exposing Pakistan's
12:05nuclear blackmail.
12:07Two points here,
12:09Agurav.
12:10The first is that
12:11obviously,
12:12he wants to
12:13attract as much
12:14international
12:15attention as
12:16possible through
12:18these comments
12:20of his.
12:21The object is
12:22that the world
12:25should restrain
12:26India from
12:28undertaking any
12:29kinetic attack,
12:30even if there is
12:31a terrorist strike
12:32against us.
12:34That is clearly
12:35his objective.
12:37He will not
12:37succeed in his
12:38objective.
12:39I think our
12:40statement today
12:41was measured.
12:43I think it was
12:44carefully crafted
12:45and it really
12:48cautioned the world
12:49to about
12:50Pakistan's
12:51behavior which
12:56really can't be
12:57forgiven and
12:58also that India's
12:59will remain firm.
13:02That is the first
13:03point.
13:04The second point,
13:05I think,
13:06Gaurav, which we
13:06have not paid
13:08sufficient attention
13:09to, is that
13:11why is
13:13Asim Munir
13:15being lionized
13:16in the United
13:20States?
13:20and I use
13:21that word
13:21deliberately.
13:24The U.S.
13:24president doesn't
13:25host a meal
13:27and have a
13:29two-hour
13:29discussion over
13:30that meal with
13:32a visiting army
13:33chief.
13:34It's absolutely
13:35unprecedented,
13:36at least as far
13:37as South Asia
13:38is concerned,
13:39it's unprecedented.
13:40So the
13:40question we
13:42have to ask
13:42ourselves,
13:43why is he
13:43doing it?
13:45And for me,
13:46the reason lies
13:48in a statement
13:50that the U.S.
13:52State Department
13:53issued on
13:55July 25th
13:57after the
13:58meeting between
13:59the U.S.
14:00Secretary of State
14:00and the
14:01Pakistan
14:01Minister for
14:03Foreign Affairs
14:03In that
14:05statement,
14:07the State
14:08Department
14:08said that
14:11they were
14:11happy and
14:12grateful.
14:14I'm paraphrasing
14:15that Pakistan
14:17was acting
14:18as a kind
14:20of a
14:20conduit
14:21for carrying
14:23messages
14:24from the
14:25U.S.
14:26to Iran.
14:28I think
14:29we in
14:30India and
14:30our strategic
14:31experts have
14:33not paid
14:33sufficient
14:34attention.
14:35It reminded
14:37me, I've
14:37written an
14:38article on
14:38this in
14:39the newspapers
14:40in some
14:40detail.
14:42It reminded
14:43me of the
14:44kind of role
14:45that Pakistan
14:46had played
14:47in 1971
14:48in assisting
14:49the United
14:51States to
14:51open up
14:52with China.
14:53And I
14:53must confess
14:54that I
14:55for one
14:55was taken
14:56totally aback
14:57by those
14:58few words
14:59words in
15:00that
15:01authoritative
15:02statement
15:02after the
15:03Rubio
15:04Ishaqtar
15:05meeting.
15:06So let
15:07us not
15:08forget
15:08that the
15:10U.S.,
15:11despite
15:11everything,
15:12despite the
15:12bomb,
15:13the three
15:13area,
15:14the three
15:15nuclear sites
15:16that they
15:16bombed,
15:17despite the
15:18Israeli
15:2012-day
15:21bombing of
15:22Iranian
15:23sites and
15:24other
15:24military
15:26facilities,
15:27the U.S.
15:29continues to
15:30remain very
15:30worried about
15:31Iran and
15:33they are
15:33using, at
15:34this stage,
15:35they are
15:35using the
15:36Pakistan.
15:37So, Dr.
15:38Abrams…
15:38Donald Trump
15:43in his first
15:44term, on
15:45the 1st of
15:45January 2018
15:46tweeted,
15:47the United
15:47States has
15:49foolishly given
15:50Pakistan more
15:51than $33 billion
15:52in aid over the
15:53past 15 years
15:55and Pakistan has
15:56given America
15:56nothing but
15:57lies, deceit,
15:58thinking of
15:59our leaders as
16:00fools.
16:01Now, is
16:02that exactly
16:03what's happening
16:04in 2025,
16:06Pakistan continues
16:07to think
16:08American
16:09leadership are
16:10fools and
16:11they think
16:12that Pakistan
16:13is a phenomenal
16:13partner in
16:15the war on
16:15terror when
16:16Pakistan is
16:17anything but
16:18that?
16:19This is
16:20obviously a
16:21very different
16:22administration
16:22than the
16:24first Trump
16:25administration.
16:26And one of
16:27the big
16:27differences is
16:29that in
16:30Washington at
16:31this time,
16:33there's a
16:34lot of
16:34interest and
16:35enthusiasm in
16:37what's being
16:38called realism
16:39within international
16:42relations.
16:43And in
16:44realism, there's
16:46no importance
16:48attached to
16:49ideology.
16:51And so even
16:52though India
16:53is a
16:55democracy,
16:56and even
16:57though Pakistan
16:58has dirty
17:00hands with
17:01respect to
17:02sponsoring
17:03Islamist
17:04extremism,
17:06that doesn't
17:07put Washington
17:09off because
17:11of their
17:11realist
17:13orientation.
17:15I think that
17:16that's one of
17:17the reasons
17:17to explain
17:18this warmth
17:20between Washington
17:21and Pakistan
17:23and the
17:24coldness between
17:25the U.S.
17:25and India,
17:26even though we're
17:27both important
17:28democracies.
17:29you see the
17:30same thing
17:31in terms of
17:32the Trump
17:33administration's
17:34treatment of
17:35other countries
17:36like, say,
17:38Qatar or
17:40Turkey,
17:42where you might
17:43think because
17:44of their,
17:45you know,
17:46their being
17:46implicated in
17:47Islamist extremism
17:49and terrorism,
17:50that that would
17:51weaken Washington's
17:53relations with
17:54them.
17:54but no,
17:55not under
17:56this administration.
17:58So,
17:58there might be
17:59some sort of
18:00broader ideological,
18:02you know,
18:03sort of
18:03international relations
18:05explanation for
18:06what's going on
18:08between the U.S.
18:08and India
18:09and Pakistan.
18:10I think that
18:11we're seeing
18:12some evidence
18:13of that in
18:13these surprisingly
18:14strong relations
18:16as well,
18:17between the U.S.
18:17and Turkey
18:18and Qatar,
18:20etc.
18:20Let me bring
18:21in General
18:21Dua into
18:22this conversation
18:22and how
18:23should India
18:24view this?
18:25One sentence.
18:27Okay,
18:27quickly,
18:28yes,
18:28go on,
18:29Ambassador.
18:30I think
18:30I would agree
18:32with my
18:33co-panelists
18:34except to say
18:36that Washington
18:36is pursuing
18:37not realism
18:38but short-sighted
18:40realism.
18:42And short-sighted
18:43realism is a
18:44sure recipe
18:45for a foreign
18:46policy and
18:47security disaster.
18:48it indeed
18:51is.
18:52And given
18:52the situation,
18:53General Dua,
18:55should India
18:55also keep
18:56relationship?
18:58I just want
18:58to add one
18:59thing.
18:59But based
19:00on, you know,
19:01realism,
19:02you could
19:02equally predict
19:04that U.S.
19:05relations with
19:06India would
19:07get better
19:08in order to
19:09contain China.
19:12Realism is
19:13often indeterminate
19:14with respect
19:15to predictions.
19:17I'm a critic
19:18of realism
19:18myself.
19:20No, but is
19:20realism the
19:21same as
19:21transactional
19:22relationship?
19:23Because if
19:24it's purely
19:25transactional,
19:26there is no
19:27investment in
19:29building up a
19:30very strong
19:30partnership.
19:32And this is
19:33what I want to
19:33understand from
19:34you.
19:34Should we be
19:35depending on
19:35America on
19:36military hardware?
19:38If I may,
19:39because if
19:39America only
19:40believes in
19:41temporary
19:41transactional
19:42relationship,
19:43tomorrow they
19:43may have good
19:44ties with
19:44Pakistan and
19:45not give us
19:45weapons or
19:46systems or
19:47spares that
19:47we require,
19:48so should we
19:49be investing
19:49in critical
19:50military equipment
19:52from the
19:53United States?
19:54General Dua,
19:54in your view?
19:57I think India
19:59should and
20:01will do
20:01whatever is
20:02in our
20:03national interest.
20:05And at
20:06the moment,
20:07I don't think
20:08we are,
20:09for whatever
20:10the foreign
20:10component that
20:11we have in
20:12importing weapons
20:14and platforms,
20:15I don't think
20:16we are putting
20:17all our eggs
20:17in one basket.
20:19So whether it
20:20is the US
20:20or any other
20:21country,
20:22I don't think
20:23it will be
20:23prudent to
20:23put your eggs
20:24in one basket.
20:25You should
20:25not be totally
20:26dependent on
20:27one partner.
20:28And that's
20:28what diversification
20:30has to be done
20:31and is being
20:31done.
20:32Especially with
20:33the US,
20:34in the recent
20:35past,
20:36US has,
20:37we've had
20:38very good
20:38defense relation.
20:39It's one of
20:40our biggest
20:40suppliers.
20:42We had
20:42several
20:43aircrafts.
20:44We have
20:44several other
20:45platforms from
20:46the US.
20:47But,
20:48you know,
20:50this little
20:51turbulence that
20:52we seem to
20:53be having
20:53now is
20:56a small
20:56issue.
20:57We will
20:58have to
20:59take a
20:59very long
20:59sighted view
21:00of things
21:01like weapons
21:03and platforms
21:04for the
21:05defense of
21:06our country.
21:06And I
21:07think as
21:08an aspiring
21:09regional power,
21:10country cannot
21:13afford to
21:14remain
21:15dependent on
21:17foreign
21:18manufacturers
21:19for long.
21:20And that
21:20is why we
21:21are giving
21:21a great
21:22push to
21:23make in
21:23India.
21:25Defense
21:26platforms,
21:27defense
21:27manufacturing
21:28and systems,
21:29it does
21:29take times,
21:30the world
21:31over.
21:31Everyone
21:31knows.
21:32So it's
21:32going to
21:33take a
21:33little while.
21:34But I
21:34think we
21:35have to
21:35rely more
21:36and more
21:37on our
21:38indigenous
21:38systems,
21:39which is
21:39growing in
21:40share.
21:41But we'll
21:42have to be
21:42patient.
21:43The big
21:43question does
21:43remain.
21:44Yes, we
21:44are going
21:44in for the
21:45PA ties,
21:45Sandeep, I
21:46believe, from
21:47the United
21:47States of
21:48America.
21:48Yes, US
21:49is promising
21:50that the
21:50GE404
21:51engines will
21:52be delivered
21:52now on
21:53time, even
21:54though they're
21:54two years
21:54late and
21:55those supply
21:55chain issues
21:56have been
21:57tackled.
21:57But somewhere
21:58down the
21:58line, has
21:59that, especially
22:01with Trump,
22:02and there are
22:02many who
22:03argue, and
22:03Ambassador
22:04Karju do
22:04weigh in on
22:05this, that
22:06should we make
22:07this distinction
22:08between the
22:08Trump administration
22:09or Trump
22:10per se, the
22:11White House, the
22:12State Department
22:13and the
22:13Pentagon, or
22:14does Trump
22:15call all the
22:15shots?
22:15But Sandeep,
22:16quickly, one
22:17minute to you
22:17and one
22:18minute to
22:18Ambassador.
22:19Well, absolutely,
22:20Gaurav.
22:20You know, the
22:22behavior of
22:22President Trump
22:23in the last
22:24couple of
22:24months has
22:25really brought
22:26that shadow
22:27back over the
22:28Indo-US
22:28relationship,
22:29the safety of
22:30the United
22:30States as a
22:31reliable supplier
22:32of military
22:33hardware.
22:33And we've
22:34seen that in
22:34Operation
22:35Sindhur, Gaurav,
22:36where the
22:36S-400 and
22:37the Brahmos
22:38missile, they
22:39were bought
22:39from Russia.
22:40Operation
22:41Sindhur would
22:41not have been
22:42a success but
22:43for these two
22:43very critical
22:44systems.
22:45Now, while
22:46the US
22:46hardware is
22:47important, they
22:48have not been
22:49used in the
22:49way that Russian
22:50systems have.
22:51And Russia
22:52never attaches
22:52any strings to
22:53the kind of
22:54weapons that
22:54it sells to
22:55India, like
22:55the United
22:56States is known
22:57to have done
22:57in the past.
22:58So that is
22:59going to be
22:59literally the
23:00elephant in the
23:00room, Gaurav,
23:01when it comes
23:01to ties with
23:03the United
23:03States, including
23:04weapons
23:05purchasers from
23:06the United
23:06States, Gaurav.
23:08Ambassador
23:08Kajiu, would
23:09you make a
23:09distinction between
23:10White House, the
23:11Pentagon and
23:12the State
23:12Department when
23:13it comes to
23:14the Trump
23:14administration?
23:15And should
23:15we wait to
23:16ride out this
23:17storm before
23:17investing big in
23:19terms of military
23:19hardware from the
23:20United States of
23:21America and see
23:21who comes four
23:22years later?
23:23Trump controls
23:25the United
23:25States politically
23:27almost completely.
23:29It's not only
23:30that he controls
23:31different branches
23:32of his
23:32administration,
23:33he has, let
23:36us not forget,
23:37won a majority
23:38of votes in
23:40the last
23:41election.
23:42His MAGA
23:42constituency remains
23:44very, very
23:45strong.
23:46He controls
23:47both houses,
23:49the Congress
23:50and the Senate.
23:52He has a
23:536-3 majority
23:54in the
23:56judiciary.
23:56I do not
23:58recall as
23:59powerful an
24:00American
24:01president as
24:02Trump.
24:03And let us
24:04not kid
24:05ourselves.
24:06We have to
24:06deal with this
24:07man for the
24:09next three and a
24:10half years.
24:11Yes, my last
24:13point, it may
24:14well happen
24:15that he may be
24:18surprised by the
24:20next round of
24:21elections for the
24:22Senate and the
24:23Congress.
24:24But that will be
24:25very cold, that
24:27will be cold
24:27comfort to us
24:29because we have
24:31to deal with him
24:32with his maverick
24:33ways.
24:34The Pakistanis are
24:36massaging his
24:37ego and he needs
24:38the Pakistanis in
24:39the Iranian
24:40conflicts, among
24:41other things.
24:43He also doesn't
24:43want Pakistan to
24:45be left to
24:45China altogether.
24:48We are
24:49instinctively, as
24:51a nation, we
24:53cannot massage
24:54anyone's ego.
24:55We've never done
24:56it.
24:56We never will.
24:57It's against our
24:59basic values that
25:00we inherited from
25:02the freedom
25:02struggle.
25:03We don't do
25:04this.
25:04We don't conduct
25:05our foreign
25:06policy in this
25:08manner.
25:08So we are a
25:10country of
25:11dignity, we are
25:12a country of
25:12self-respect and
25:14we expect that
25:15our partners will
25:16show us the
25:17same.
25:18Unfortunately, the
25:20way Trump is
25:21conducting himself
25:22with us, it's a
25:23different matter.
25:24He's conducting
25:25himself similarly
25:26with many
25:26countries except
25:27China.
25:28The only country
25:29is the
25:30Frencher to
25:30China.
25:32I've run out
25:33of time on this
25:33part of the
25:34show.
25:34To all my
25:35guests, many
25:35thanks for
25:36joining me.
Recommended
53:43
|
Up next