• Commentary
  • Research
  • Experts
  • Events
Carnegie China logoCarnegie lettermark logo
{
  "authors": [
    "Frederic Grare"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "Afghanistan",
    "Pakistan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

Mapping the Future of U.S.-Pakistan Relations Vis-A-Vis Afghanistan Post-Withdrawal

The search for a political compromise between the actors of the conflict must be central to U.S. efforts to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Link Copied
By Frederic Grare
Published on Dec 1, 2017

Source: Routledge

Summary

Mapping the future of US-Pakistan relations vis-à-vis Afghanistan is indeed a complex exercise. Absent a relatively functional regime in Kabul, the USA will be tempted to establish a quid pro quo relationship with Pakistan under which it would delegate part or all the responsibility of the stability of Afghanistan to Islamabad, even though such a move would inevitably create tensions with New Delhi.

The strategic interests and perception of the other by Afghanistan and Pakistan are known and quite stable. Relations between the two countries, although not static, are relatively stable, as are the interests of each country vis-à-vis one another. The US posture, however – the most important variable – is more difficult to analyze. The American hierarchy of priorities is constantly changing as Washington balances contradictory imperatives whose respective importance is constantly redefined according to the domestic political needs of the moment. The real novelty is the triangular dynamic is the unprecedented importance (except in Afghanistan) of the domestic situation of each of the three actors. Islamabad concerns about Pashtun nationalism are not new but the presence of Pakistani Taliban (TTP) sanctuaries in Afghanistan gives a new dimension to the problem. While it remains essentially a domestic Pakistani issue - temporarily exported to Afghanistan – but with Pakistani sources and objectives – it is nevertheless an additional front of tension between Islamabad and Kabul, with the potential to trap the USA in a zero-sum game between Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

Similarly, the US administration has insistently defined the weakening of al Qaeda as the only real US war objective; since neither the Obama, nor previous administrations, have achieved any of their objectives in the country, such a redefinition allows Washington to justify a withdrawal from Afghanistan as the natural ending to a successful military operation. This redefinition could lead to serious lower order contradictions for overall American policy in the region and therefore prove a source of problems for its relationship with both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Should either Kabul or Islamabad become an obstacle to the US withdrawal, their relationship could suffer accordingly.

No matter how important these factors however, post-withdrawal relations between the USA and Pakistan vis-à-vis Afghanistan will also depend on larger strategic considerations: Afghanistan-Pakistan relations matter to the USA only to the extent that they have the potential to affect US territory or national interests, or threaten regional stability. But other considerations will inevitably also come into play. The fact that Pakistan is a nuclear state will, for example, be sufficient to persuade American decision makers to maintain a working relationship with Islamabad, irrespective of their actual capacity to influence Pakistan’s nuclear policy. The defining factor for the closeness of the USA’s relationship with either Afghanistan or Pakistan will be less the convergence between the foreign policies of the three actors than the potential nuisance that Afghanistan or Pakistan may constitute to US interests, which will in turn be shaped by Washington’s perceptions about its capacity to mitigate such irritants. From this perspective, Pakistan is likely to receive much greater attention from the USA in the future irrespective of other factors, including either state’s relationship with Afghanistan.

The dynamic that led to the creation of the Taliban in the 1990s and (before and later) to the turning of Afghanistan into a terrorist sanctuary will, however, be left intact. So will the temptation for Pakistan to see Afghanistan exclusively through the prism of its relationship with India. As it will, moreover, prove unable to guarantee Afghanistan’s stability, the risk is real that the US withdrawal may set the entire region back some years, although not necessarily to a pre-9/11 milieu, as some forces are likely to stay in Afghanistan and exercise some influence in the evolution of the country.

The political reconstruction of Afghanistan will remain the only way to avoid such a setback. Priority should therefore be given to the search for a political compromise in Afghanistan. This would offer a minimum guarantee for the preservation of the short and medium term interests of all the actors, ensure a smooth withdrawal, and minimize the risk of conflict among them. Such a quid pro quo can only be evolved through a truly inclusive political dialogue involving all Afghan actors.

Read full chapter

This chapter was originally published in Afghanistan—Challenges and Prospects, released by Routledge.

About the Author

Frederic Grare

Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, South Asia Program

Frédéric Grare was a nonresident senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where his research focuses on Indo-Pacific dynamics, the search for a security architecture, and South Asia Security issues.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    France, the Other Indo-Pacific Power

      Frederic Grare

  • Article
    What Sri Lanka’s Presidential Election Means for Foreign Policy

      Frederic Grare

Frederic Grare
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, South Asia Program
Frederic Grare
SecurityMilitaryForeign PolicySouth AsiaAfghanistanPakistan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie China

  • Commentary
    Emissary
    Trump and Xi Are Angling for Three Years of Stability

    But their "principal to principal" model will only be as effective as the political strength of each leader back home.

      • Damien Ma

      Damien Ma

  • Commentary
    China Sells Stability Amid American Volatility

    U.S. unpredictability has allowed China to capitalize on its positioning as the “responsible great power”. Paradoxically, the more China wins the perception game, the more likely expectations will rise for Beijing to deliver not just words but to demonstrate with its deeds.

      Chong Ja Ian

  • Vietnam's Top Leader To Lam meets with young representatives from China and Vietnam participating in the "Red Study Tours" at the Great Hall of the People on April 15, 2026 in Beijing, China. T
    Commentary
    Why Vietnam Is Swinging in China’s Direction

    Hanoi and Beijing have long treated each other as distant cousins rather than comrades in arms. That might be changing as both sides draw closer to hedge against uncertainty and America’s erratic behavior.

      • Nguyen-khac-giang

      Nguyễn Khắc Giang

  • Commentary
    China’s Energy Security Doesn’t Run Through Hormuz but Through the Electrification of Everything

    Across Asia, China is better positioned to withstand energy shocks from the fallout of the Iran war. Its abundant coal capacity can ensure stability in the near term. Yet at the same time, the country’s energy transition away from coal will make it even less vulnerable during the next shock.


      • Damien Ma

      Damien Ma

  • Commentary
    Malaysia’s Year as ASEAN Chair: Managing Disorder

    Malaysia’s chairmanship sought to fend off short-term challenges while laying the groundwork for minimizing ASEAN’s longer-term exposure to external stresses.

      Elina Noor

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
Carnegie China logo, white
Keck Seng Tower133 Cecil Street #10-01ASingapore, 069535Phone: +65 9650 7648
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.