Trump’s coercive diplomacy: U.S. threats of infrastructure destruction in Iran expose systemic failures in South Asian geopolitical leverage

Pakistan’s diplomatic traditions emphasize non-alignment and regional solidarity, rooted in pre-colonial governance models like the Mughal *mansabdari* system, which prioritized collective stability over coercion. These indigenous frameworks are systematically erased in favor of Western models of 'negotiation,' which often equate strength with military threat. The erasure of Pakistan’s civil society-led peace movements, such as the 2011 Dharna-e-Inqilab, further marginalizes homegrown solutions.

The U.S.-Pakistan relationship has been cyclical, oscillating between alliance and estrangement since the 1950s, with Pakistan often serving as a proxy battleground for Cold War and post-9/11 conflicts. Trump’s threats echo the 1980s U.S. policy of arming Afghan mujahideen through Pakistan, which destabilized the region for decades. The 1979 Islamic Revolution marked a turning point, transforming Iran from a U.S. ally into a regional adversary, a dynamic that persists today.

In contrast to Trump’s transactional diplomacy, many non-Western traditions—such as the Chinese *yi* (righteousness) or the Islamic *adl* (justice)—frame negotiations as moral obligations rather than power plays. Pakistan’s historical role as a mediator in regional conflicts, such as the 1965 and 1971 wars, reflects a cultural emphasis on dialogue over ultimatums. Meanwhile, Iran’s resilience against sanctions and threats stems from its ancient *taarof* (art of indirect communication) and collective memory of foreign invasions.

Studies on coercive diplomacy, such as Daniel Byman’s *Coercion and Credibility*, demonstrate that threats of infrastructure destruction often backfire, escalating conflict rather than resolving it. The 2003 Iraq War’s destruction of civilian infrastructure led to prolonged instability, a pattern likely to repeat in Iran or Pakistan. Research on game theory (e.g., Axelrod’s *The Evolution of Cooperation*) shows that zero-sum approaches reduce the likelihood of long-term agreements.

Artistic and spiritual traditions in South Asia often depict geopolitical conflict as a disruption of cosmic order (*dharma* in Hinduism, *adab* in Sufism). The poetry of Allama Iqbal, for instance, critiques foreign domination as a violation of spiritual sovereignty. Meanwhile, Iranian cinema (e.g., Abbas Kiarostami’s *Taste of Cherry*) explores the human cost of political violence, offering a counter-narrative to militarized diplomacy.

Scenario modeling by the RAND Corporation suggests that U.S. threats to destroy Iranian infrastructure could trigger a regional arms race, destabilizing Pakistan and Afghanistan. Alternative models, such as Track II diplomacy (e.g., the 2015 Iran nuclear deal), demonstrate that multilateral negotiations yield better outcomes than coercion. Future modeling must account for climate-induced water scarcity in the region, which could exacerbate conflicts over shared resources like the Indus River.

Pakistani women’s rights activists, such as those in the Aurat March movement, have long warned that geopolitical tensions disproportionately harm marginalized groups, including women and religious minorities. Iranian labor unions and student movements have also resisted U.S. sanctions, framing them as collective punishment. The voices of Baloch and Pashtun communities, who bear the brunt of cross-border violence, are entirely absent from mainstream narratives.