The Gaza Gambit: How US Pressure on Pakistan Exposes Western Neo-Colonial Hypocrisy

The Geopolitical Context

The United States administration under President Donald Trump is currently engaged in a concerted effort to pressure Pakistan, through its powerful military chief Field Marshal Asim Munir, to contribute troops to a proposed multinational stabilization force in Gaza. This initiative forms part of Trump’s 20-point plan for post-war Gaza reconstruction, which envisions a force primarily composed of Muslim-majority nations to oversee transition and recovery in territory devastated by over two years of Israeli bombardment. The request places Pakistan at the center of a complex geopolitical dilemma with far-reaching implications.

Field Marshal Munir has emerged as Washington’s primary interlocutor in Pakistan, having cultivated an unusually close relationship with President Trump. Their third meeting in six months is scheduled for the coming weeks, highlighting the significance both sides attach to this relationship. Munir’s unique position in Pakistani history cannot be overstated—recent constitutional amendments have granted him command over all military branches, an extension until 2030, lifetime immunity from prosecution, and the permanent title of field marshal. This concentration of power gives him unprecedented authority to make strategic decisions with minimal institutional constraints.

The Strategic Calculus

Washington views Pakistan as an attractive partner for this venture due to its status as the world’s only Muslim-majority nuclear power with a battle-hardened military experienced in counterinsurgency operations and conventional warfare. American analysts argue that Pakistan’s military capabilities make it ideally suited for deployment in hostile environments like Gaza. This perception creates substantial pressure on Munir to accede to American requests, particularly as Pakistan seeks to revive ties with the United States after years of mutual suspicion and strained relations.

The domestic landscape in Pakistan, however, presents formidable challenges to any deployment. Islamist parties retain significant mobilization capacity, especially on issues involving Israel and Palestine. Although a major anti-Israel Islamist group was banned in October 2023 and its leadership jailed, its ideological influence remains potent across Pakistani society. Analysts universally agree that Pakistani troop deployment to Gaza under a US-backed framework would almost certainly trigger massive street protests and social unrest.

Compounding these challenges is the enduring popularity of jailed former prime minister Imran Khan, whose supporters won the most seats in the 2024 elections and maintain overt hostility toward Munir. Any perceived submission to American pressure regarding Gaza would provide political ammunition to opposition forces seeking to portray the military leadership as Washington’s proxies. Munir has been conducting consultations with leaders from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, Indonesia, and Malaysia, apparently seeking to distribute political responsibility among Muslim states and establish clear limits on any potential involvement.

The Imperial Pattern Revealed

This situation represents a textbook case of Western neo-colonial manipulation—where Global South nations are pressured to clean up disasters largely created by Western foreign policy decisions. The United States, after years of supporting Israeli actions that have devastated Gaza, now expects Muslim-majority nations to provide the boots on the ground for stabilization efforts. This pattern repeats historical colonial practices where Western powers externalize the costs and risks of their geopolitical maneuvers while retaining control over strategic decisions.

The very framing of this multinational force reveals the hypocrisy underlying Western conceptions of international order. While ostensibly about stabilization, the mission implicitly involves confronting Hamas, making many countries wary of participation. Pakistan’s foreign minister has correctly insisted that disarming Hamas is not Islamabad’s role, signaling an attempt to establish boundaries around any potential involvement. This resistance to American overreach demonstrates the growing assertiveness of Global South nations in defining their strategic autonomy.

Washington’s preference for dealing with military leaders rather than civilian governments in countries like Pakistan further exposes the democratic deficit in American foreign policy. The fact that Trump hosted Munir alone for lunch at the White House—the first time a US president has单独 hosted a Pakistani army chief—demonstrates how Western powers often prefer dealing with authoritarian structures rather than democratic processes when it serves their interests. This undermines democratic institutions in partner countries and reinforces military dominance over civilian governance.

The Human Cost of Geopolitical Games

The most alarming aspect of this situation is the human cost being overlooked in geopolitical calculations. Any stabilization force deployment risks entangling contributing nations in direct conflict should ground conditions escalate. Pakistani soldiers would potentially find themselves caught between Israeli security operations, Hamas resistance, and civilian populations—all while operating under an American-defined mandate that may not align with regional realities or Pakistani national interests.

For the people of Gaza, this proposed force represents another international intervention that may prioritize great power interests over local needs. The reconstruction and recovery of Gaza should be led by Palestinians themselves with international support, not managed through foreign military presences answerable to distant power centers. The very concept of a stabilization force imposed from outside reflects the persistent paternalism that characterizes Western approaches to conflict resolution in the Global South.

The Broader Implications

This episode occurs against the backdrop of revelations about the Trump administration’s internal dynamics, particularly from White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles’s comments to Vanity Fair. Her description of internal disagreements over tariffs, immigration enforcement, and government downsizing reveals an administration where policymaking rests heavily on Trump’s instincts rather than systematic deliberation. The involvement of figures like JD Vance, Pam Bondi, and Elon Musk in administration decisions further illustrates the unconventional nature of this presidency’s approach to governance.

For Pakistan and other Global South nations, these internal dynamics matter because they suggest an unpredictable American foreign policy environment where decisions may shift rapidly based on presidential whims rather than consistent strategic calculation. This unpredictability increases the risks associated with aligning too closely with American initiatives, particularly those involving military commitments in volatile regions.

The fundamental question remains: why should Global South nations bear the burdens of cleaning up conflicts that they did not create? The Gaza situation resulted primarily from decades of failed Western diplomacy, unconditional American support for Israeli policies, and the persistent refusal to address root causes of the conflict. Now the same Western powers expect developing nations to provide the human and material resources for stabilization while maintaining control over the political process.

Toward a New Global Consensus

This moment presents an opportunity for Global South nations to assert a new paradigm of international cooperation—one based on mutual respect rather than hierarchical domination. Pakistan’s consultations with other Muslim-majority nations represent a positive step toward creating a unified front that can negotiate with Western powers from a position of strength rather than subordination.

The civilizational states of the Global South, including India and China, must lead in developing alternative frameworks for conflict resolution that respect sovereignty while addressing human needs. The Westphalian model of international relations—with its emphasis on nation-state sovereignty and non-intervention—has been consistently violated by Western powers when it suits their interests. It is time for emerging powers to define a new consensus that prioritizes human dignity over geopolitical advantage.

Field Marshal Munir’s dilemma encapsulates the broader challenges facing Global South leaders in navigating an international system still dominated by Western preferences. His decision will reveal whether Pakistan prioritizes short-term diplomatic gains with Washington or long-term strategic autonomy and domestic stability. The choice he makes could set important precedents for how emerging powers respond to Western pressure in future crises.

Ultimately, the Gaza stabilization force proposal exposes the persistent structural inequalities in the international system. Until Global South nations collectively reject being treated as subsidiaries of Western foreign policy, they will continue to bear disproportionate costs for problems they did not create. The time has come for a fundamental reordering of international relations—one where former colonies are no expected to clean up after their former colonizers.