أَعُوذُ بِاللّٰهِ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

In the name of ALLAH, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

USA: A Luring Desert

Deserts are called deserts because the word comes from the Latin deserere, meaning "to abandon" or "to forsake". In early English and Old French around the 1200s, a "desert" originally described any abandoned, empty, or barren wasteland—whether it was a dry sandy plain, a lonely forest, or a wild wilderness. The philosophers and intellectuals have expressed the desert with terms like "Absolute Silence"; "The Mirror of the Soul"; "Time and Space"; "Implacable Indifference"; "Shifting Identity"; "Hidden Hidden Wholeness" and "Absolute Truth".

Writers, philosophers, and religious figures have consistently described the desert as a place to lose the ego and find the soul. French philosopher Jean Baudrillard described the desert landscape as "a natural extension of the inner silence of the body." American author Mary Hunter Austin observed that the desert provides a rare perspective, showing that "there is room enough and time enough."

American author Edward Abbey wrote in his book "Desert Solitaire" about facing the primal wilderness. He noted it frightens humans not through hostility, but through its "implacable indifference". The landscape remains a stark reminder of an "antehuman" world that entirely ignores human desire. In "The English Patient", Sri Lankan born canadian novelist Michael Ondaatje described how the desert "could not be claimed or owned." He called it a "piece of cloth carried by winds" that is never held down by boundaries or maps. Its passing cultures leave nothing behind, avoiding the permanent scars of modern civilization.

French Aviator and Poet Antoine de Saint-Exupéry famously explored the sands in his novel "The Little Prince". He wrote; "What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." In his view, the silence of a dune throbs and gleams because its true beauty is entirely invisible. American writer Keith Miller in his novel "The Book of Flying" contrasted landscapes by noting: "A forest is a mystery, but the desert is truth. Life pared to the bone." Without foliage or shadows to obscure the view, everything is laid completely bare. Similarly, Nadine Gordimer called it "a place without expectation," stripping away human assumptions.

Mauritian born French Novelist Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio noted, "Men go out into the desert, and they are like ships at sea; no one knows when they will return." Gustave Le Clézio's quote compares the vast, trackless nature of the desert to the open ocean, emphasizing the uncertainty and isolation experienced by travelers. The desert acts like a vast sea where traditional landmarks disappear. Humans face immense natural forces, stripped of modern securities, much like sailors on a small ship.

The "Physical Reality" of the desert may be described as the "Threat of Annihilation". Historically, travel narratives also treated the desert as a terrifying, adversarial force. The deserts are also known to offer "Illusory Landscapes"; which are called "Mirages". Many travelers wrote extensively of mirages—tricking exhausted minds into seeing nonexistent water sources. This very mirage aspect of desert is so luring and exhausting that many souls may have fruitlessly search the water and died.

The desert has been described as a hostile force that "swallows entire civilizations," erasing footprints and memories in shifting sands. Strong winds push sand across the ground every day. This action quickly covers up roads, buildings, and footprints. High heat, fierce sun, and a lack of water destroy leftover materials. Wood rots, bones break down, and metal rusts faster. Without solid rock or thick plant roots to hold the earth still, the surface changes shape constantly.

The recently found ancient trading post in Oman "Ubar" known as the "Atlantis of the Sands," was buried by a collapsed sinkhole and shifting dunes. Parts of the Sahara desert once had lakes and green fields, leaving behind ancient rock art and tools from a forgotten time. The "Saraswati River" is the most famous example of a river "lost to the desert" in Indian history and tradition. In the earliest ancient texts like the Rig Veda, the Saraswati is described as a massive, roaring river flowing from the Himalayas all the way to the Arabian Sea.

American diplomacy is the method the United States uses to manage relationships with foreign governments, international organizations, and global populations through the U.S. Department of State. US DoS negotiates pacts covering trade, defense arrangements, and international security. USA Partners with agencies like the Department of Commerce to open foreign markets and secure trade deals for American businesses. It also gathera strategic insights and facilitate operations for defense cooperation globally.

US diplomatic regime began showing its effect during the American Revolution in 1775 and 1776, highlighted by Benjamin Franklin securing vital French alliances. The last century global expansion started through major milestones like the Treaty of Paris, the Louisiana Purchase, and post-WWII European reconstruction. The current past Cold War era evolved for containment to address transnational challenges, including global health, climate change, and economic stability.

Henry Kissinger was arguably the most influential and controversial U.S. diplomat of the 20th century, completely reshaping American foreign policy during the Cold War. Serving as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, he championed realpolitik—a pragmatic approach to diplomacy based on national interests and power balance rather than shared moral or ideological values.

There is a famous observation, most frequently attributed to Henry Kissinger, the former U.S. National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, who reportedly said, "To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal."The quote reflects a realistic view of international relations, highlighting the complex and sometimes perilous nature of aligning with a global superpower.

The US under Henry Kissinger's legacy is deeply polarized; he is celebrated for historic diplomatic breakthroughs that averted global conflict, yet heavily condemned for the devastating human cost of his covert military actions. Foreign policy scholars often point to specific historical events to illustrate this dynamic:-

The Vietnam War: The United States heavily backed South Vietnamese President Ngô Đình Diệm, but later acquiesced to the 1963 coup that resulted in his assassination when his policies conflicted with U.S. war strategies.

The Shah of Iran: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a critical U.S. ally in the Middle East for decades. Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the U.S. initially hesitated to grant him asylum, fearing retaliation against American citizens.

The Kurds in the Middle East: Kurdish forces have partnered with the U.S. military in multiple conflicts, notably against ISIS. However, sudden shifts in U.S. strategic priorities have occasionally left them vulnerable to regional adversaries.

Like all nations, U.S. foreign policy prioritizes its own national security and domestic interests, which can cause strategic priorities to shift rapidly. Smaller allies may become overly dependent on U.S. military or economic support, making them highly vulnerable if that support is reduced or redirected.

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 demolished the decades-old bipolar Cold War framework, forcing modern U.S. foreign policy to pivot across four distinct eras over the last 35+ years. American diplomacy transitioned from a brief period of undisputed global dominance to a hyper-focused war on terror, followed by a pivot toward economic nationalism, and finally arriving at today's era of intense strategic competition.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. emerged as the world's sole superpower. Foreign policy was driven by the belief that liberal democracy and free markets would naturally expand globally. The September 11 attacks abruptly ended the post-Cold War era, shifting U.S. foreign policy toward an intensive, security-first posture that lasted for a decade and a half.

The U.S. attempted to forcibly implant democracies in the Middle East, which ultimately destabilized the region, strained European alliances, and cost trillions of dollars. Recognizing the heavy toll of Middle Eastern wars, the Obama administration attempted a strategic "pivot" toward the Asia-Pacific to counter China's rise, though ongoing conflicts in Syria and Libya repeatedly pulled focus back to the Middle East.

The Trump administration marked a radical break from decades of bipartisan consensus, replacing traditional alliances with a highly transactional, nationalist approach. Washington openly questioned the value of NATO, demanded that allies pay more for their defense, and withdrew from major international pacts like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Paris Climate Accord.

The U.S. abandoned quiet diplomacy with Beijing, launching a massive bilateral trade war utilizing heavy tariffs to punish intellectual property theft and reduce trade deficits. In the Middle East, the U.S. bypassed traditional peace frameworks to broker historic normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations, including the UAE and Bahrain.

The current era combines elements of previous doctrines, blending traditional international alliances with aggressive economic protectionism to manage the return of great-power rivalries. The diplomatic "fiasco" in Iran—most sharply highlighted by the 1979 Islamic Revolution and subsequent Iran Hostage Crisis—serves as the ultimate historical proof of the dangers embedded in Henry Kissinger’s Realpolitk paradigm.

By analyzing the Iran crisis through the lens of early U.S. Cold War diplomacy, we can see exactly how a rigid focus on short-term stability over long-term domestic realities created a massive, enduring geopolitical disaster. Under the traditional paradigm, U.S. policymakers viewed international relations entirely through a state-centric, balance-of-power lens.

The U.S. backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as a critical, secular buffer against the Soviet Union and a reliable supplier of oil. Kissinger's model prioritized the Shah's external strength while completely ignoring his internal weakness. The U.S. turned a blind eye to the brutal repression carried out by the Shah's secret police, the SAVAK, and the deep economic inequality plaguing the country. Because U.S. diplomats focused on elite-level statecraft rather than societal realities, Washington was caught completely off guard by a populist, religious revolution that united secular liberals, leftists, and Islamists against a common American-backed tyrant.

The Iran crisis perfectly encapsulates the exact quote discussed earlier: "To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal." The old paradigm encouraged client states to become utterly dependent on U.S. military sales and intelligence support. This dependency isolated the Shah from his own citizens, who viewed him merely as an American puppet. When the revolution erupted, the Carter administration vacillated between supporting the Shah's crackdown and urging democratic reforms. When the Shah fled, the U.S. initially hesitated to grant him asylum to protect its own remaining diplomatic staff, effectively abandoning a multi-decade ally once he lost power.

Ultimately, the fiasco in Iran exposed the fatal flaw of 1970s American diplomacy: it mistook a dictator’s survival for a nation's stability. The collapse of the U.S.-Iran alliance proved that a foreign policy completely stripped of moral calculations and blind to grassroots domestic suffering is fundamentally unsustainable.

Similarly to Iran, the U.S. diplomatic relationship with Pakistan is perhaps the most vivid modern example of the "Realpolitik blind spot." Just as in Iran, Washington’s paradigm has consistently mistaken top-down military cooperation for long-term national stability. By viewing Pakistan almost exclusively through a narrow, security-focused lens—first as a Cold War ally, then as a frontline state in the War on Terror—the U.S. has repeatedly achieved short-term tactical successes at the cost of deep, catastrophic strategic failures.

The core flaw in the U.S. approach is treating Pakistan as a geospatial chessboard rather than a complex nation of over 240 million people with its own existential security anxieties. Pakistan’s security establishment has always viewed India as its singular existential threat. Consequently, while the U.S. poured billions into Pakistan to fight regional militancy, Pakistan used that leverage to maintain strategic depth, leading to the "double game" where certain militant factions (like the Afghan Taliban) were tolerated as hedges against Indian influence.

U.S. policy relied heavily on elite-level, backroom diplomacy, combined with a highly visible drone warfare campaign in the tribal regions during the 2000s and 2010s. This created massive, deep-seated anti-American sentiment among the Pakistani public. Much like the public anger that built up in Iran under the Shah, this alienation became a potent political weapon for populist leaders (such as Imran Khan) to rally the public against "foreign interference," severely limiting Washington’s diplomatic maneuverability.

The fiasco of the Afghan withdrawal in 2021 proved that Washington's multi-decade Pakistan policy failed its ultimate test. By focusing strictly on tactical military cooperation while ignoring Pakistan's internal political dynamics, economic vulnerabilities, and regional anxieties, the U.S. fell victim to the exact same Kissingerian blind spot: it mistook a transactional security relationship for a sustainable strategic alliance.

Pakistan's foreign policy alignment with the United States may be best characterized in an Urdu Verse from a Pakistani Poetess Saulat Bano (کیا خبر تھی کہ سرابوں کا سفر ہے سارا; ریت کی طرح بکھر جائیں گے پیماں تیرے) Little did I know that the entire journey was one of mirages; Your promises would scatter like sand. This describes Pakistan's foreign policy alignment with USA since very beginning as an illusionary journey and the reality of hollow false promises from USA just like the metaphor of scattering like sand and blind support from Pakistan's Elite Ruling Class just as a lover in blind love. The US Pakistan Foreign Relations may be best categorized on the themes of deception and the unreliability of claims for the "People of Pakistan" and of love and loyalty for the " Ruling Elite.

The relationship between the United States and Pakistan can be analyzed through this two-tiered lens of elite-level alignment and popular disillusionment, which mirrors a structural divide between state interest and public perception. The perception of "love and loyalty" for the ruling elite stems from decades of institutional ties that transcend shifts in popular political sentiment.

U.S. engagement has historically prioritized direct relationships with Pakistan’s military, security, and civilian leadership, often bypassing public consensus to secure immediate geopolitical goals. For the Pakistani ruling elite, Washington has historically represented a source of financial stability, military hardware, and international legitimacy during economic or political crises. For the U.S., engaging a centralized elite has provided predictable, top-down execution of strategic policies—without navigating complex public debates.

The theme of "deception and unreliability" for the general population reflects a historical pattern of sudden strategic pivots and misaligned priorities. Despite billions in security and humanitarian assistance over the decades, ordinary citizens rarely experienced direct, tangible improvements in local infrastructure, healthcare, or daily life. Policies heavily criticized by the public, such as drone strikes or localized military operations, created a widespread perception that the elite compromised national sovereignty for foreign approval.

In the current geopolitical landscape, the above discussed duality remains visible, though heavily constrained by shifting global dynamics. Widespread digital access has magnified public awareness of this duality, making it increasingly difficult for the state to manage the domestic political costs of a transactional foreign policy. For many ordinary Pakistanis, the foundational ideals of the American Dream hold immense appeal, driven by structural realities at home.

The people of Pakistan view the "American Dream" through a deeply divided perspective that sharply separates admiration for America's internal ideals from resentment toward its external foreign policy. Pakistanis widely admire the institutional stability, individual liberties, and legal protections inherent in the U.S. system—assets they frequently feel are lacking in their own governance.

The primary source of public cynicism stems from the perception that the U.S. hypocritically compromises its own values of liberty when dealing with Pakistan. To the average citizen, the historical backing for dictators and corrupt politicians creates a narrative that the U.S. champions democracy and freedom domestically, but prefers pliant, authoritarian rulers abroad who can deliver quick transactional results. The Pakistani public generally distinguishes between the American people and culture—which they view favorably through tech, education, and media—and the U.S. government, which is viewed with entrenched strategic suspicion.

This USA as a country and ally for any ordinary citizen of Pakistan can be best termed with a metaphor "Luring Desert". The USA's "Luring Desert" has made literary symbols like "Absolute Silence"; "The Mirror of the Soul"; "Time and Space"; "Implacable Indifference"; "Shifting Identity"; "Hidden Hidden Wholeness" and "Absolute Truth" true for ordinary Pakistanis.

"Absolute Silence" (The Void of Being Unheard): -

The Domestic Reality: For the ordinary Pakistani struggling for constitutional rights, this symbol represents the crushing weight of censorship. Their protests, their votes, and their digital screams are met with state-enforced firewalls, internet blackouts, and mainstream media blackouts.

The Geopolitical Reality: It is the deafening silence of the international community. While Washington champions liberty globally, it maintains a calculated, absolute silence when the basic human rights of ordinary Pakistanis are suppressed by the ruling elite.

"The Mirror of the Soul" (The Loss of Self-Respect):-

The Crisis of Conscience: This symbol reflects the painful self-examination an ordinary Pakistani undergoes when looking at their choices. To survive economically or to seek a visa, they must often compromise their dignity, bow to nepotism, or pay bribes.

The Ultimate Reflection: When they look into the mirror, they see a soul caught between a homeland they love but cannot survive in, and a foreign dream that demands they strip away their identity to enter.

"Time and Space" (The Exile’s Trap)

The Living Limbo: For the youth waiting for a way out, time stands completely still. Years are wasted in a paralyzed "waiting room" mentality, waiting for a visa approval or a smuggler’s call. Space becomes a prison; they are physically in Pakistan, but mentally their minds have already crossed the Atlantic.

The Physical Border: For those on the dangerous migration routes, space expands into a lethal expanse of hostile oceans, dense jungles, and endless borders where time is measured only by survival.

"Implacable Indifference" (The Coldness of the Machine)

The Elite’s Apathy: This represents the total lack of empathy from Pakistan's ruling class toward the suffering of the common man.

The Western Fortress: It is also the face of the "luring desert" itself. The automated visa rejection algorithms, the brutal border patrols, and the geopolitical machinery of the West operate with an implacable indifference to human desperation. The system does not care about a family's broken dreams or a mother's tears; it only cares about borders and transactional state interests.

"Shifting Identity" (The Fractured Self)

The Ideological Split: The ordinary Pakistani lives with a deeply fractured identity. They are caught in a constant psychological tug-of-war: they despise American foreign policy and its support for local autocrats, yet they intensely admire American education, technology, and stability.

The Displaced Laborer: If they do manage to reach the West illegally, their identity shifts completely. They go from being a respected family member or an educated graduate in their home village to an invisible, undocumented ghost working in the shadows of a Western metropolis.

"Hidden Wholeness" (The Suppressed Potential)

The Buried Talent: Borrowed from Thomas Merton, this symbol represents the immense, untapped brilliance, resilience, and humanity of the Pakistani common man.

The Structural Cage: This wholeness remains permanently "hidden" and locked away because the current socio-political system provides no meritocracy. The brilliance of the youth is crushed under the weight of economic inflation and political engineering, forcing them to look toward the desert to unlock what their own homeland refuses to recognize.

"Absolute Truth" (The Brutal Awakening)

The Ultimate Reality: In the end, the "Absolute Truth" is the stark, unvarnished reality that the common man is entirely at his own.

The Shattered Mirage: The absolute truth is that the "luring desert" will never save them; its promises of liberty are a geopolitical tool, not a humanitarian mission. The truth is that the ruling elite will always prioritize their own survival over public mandate, and that the only real path to dignity requires transforming the soil beneath their own feet rather than chasing a mirage across the world.

This USA as a country and ally for any ordinary citizen of Pakistan can be best termed with a metaphor "Luring Desert". This accurately captures the profound psychological and physical toll that the pursuit of the American Dream takes on ordinary Pakistanis today. It reflects an intensifying crisis of survival, where the enchantment of a better life increasingly leads to devastating outcomes. The irresistible pull of the United States has intensified due to Pakistan's ongoing domestic challenges. Chronic inflation, political polarization, and limited domestic opportunities make the American promise of stability and meritocracy look like a vital oasis. Constant digital exposure to the success of the Pakistani diaspora creates an intense social pressure, convincing youth that real success is only possible outside Pakistan's borders.

The tragic conclusion of the metaphor is vividly illustrated by the choices ordinary citizens feel forced to make, and the realities they face if they survive the journey. The core contradiction lies at the heart of the Pakistani public's deep cynicism toward Washington. The "luring desert" entices the global audience with the rhetoric of universal democracy and human rights, yet its foreign policy consistently prioritizes authoritarian stability over the will of the Pakistani people.

When ordinary Pakistanis risk their lives on the streets to demand constitutional supremacy, Washington historically aligns with whoever holds the actual levers of hard power—most notably the military establishment—to secure immediate, tactical outcomes. The U.S. government’s historical preference for a "centralized elite" stems from a desire for predictable execution of its regional interests. A genuinely democratic Pakistan, driven by a highly vocal and intensely nationalistic public, would likely resist foreign dictates. Therefore, the "luring desert" implicitly tolerates the squeezing of civil liberties because a weakened democratic fabric makes the ruling elite more reliant on external validation and economic lifelines.

The curse of the luring desert is that it feeds on its own devastation. The more the economy deteriorates, the more desperate the common man becomes to run toward the mirage. The more the best minds run toward the mirage, the worse the country becomes—leaving the remaining population trapped in an increasingly unlivable reality, looking outward at a horizon that promises salvation but frequently delivers ruin. The ultimate curse of this dynamic is that it leaves the common man structurally trapped. The "luring desert" continues to call out to the youth as a symbol of personal freedom, but by politically and economically reinforcing the very forces that suppress liberty inside Pakistan, it ensures that the common man's only options are domestic submission or the hazardous gamble of escape.