New normal in the US; what about Pakistan?

Following Iran's valiant resistance to the joint American-Israeli aggression, the world is witnessing the emergence of a new normal - first and foremost in the US policy towards Israel. June 18, when President Trump signed the MoU with Iran at Versailles - followed by presidential remarks never heard before - marked the unraveling of what had long appeared to be the unquestioned pampering of Israel.

The occasion itself amounted to a shining moment for Iran, mediator Pakistan, and all those wary of American-Israeli high-handedness against Palestinians and Iranians.

Trump's endorsement of the MoU, which stipulates 60 days for substantive technical Iran-US negotiations, delivered a stark reminder that even the strongest nations must sometimes swallow a bitter pill. On June 28, 1919, at Versailles, a humiliated Germany accepted sole responsibility for causing World War I and surrendered about 10 per cent of its pre-war territory in Europe, along with all overseas colonies - a heavy price for strategic overreach. All of this occurred under the commanding gaze of US President Woodrow Wilson.

Ironically, on June 18, 2026, another US President, Donald Trump, signed a very different document - one that promises to end what even most European leaders termed an "illegal war" against Iran and Lebanon. Not a surrender, certainly, but an implicit admission of responsibility for a conflict that sections of the American media - including The New York Times - have already dismissed as an unnecessary blunder driven by Israeli pressure.

Before examining the implications, let us revisit some of the remarks an incensed Trump directed at Netanyahu:

"You don't have to knock down a building every time somebody walks into it that's from Hezbollah … When two drones are shot into the desert and drop harmlessly, you don't have to knock down buildings in Beirut."

"Too much" and "vicious" (describing Israeli actions).

"Netanyahu has to be more responsible."

"The U.S. is the reason Israel remains militarily and diplomatically strong." (Paraphrased from his G7 remarks.)

Vice President JD Vance also publicly criticised Netanyahu's government for attacking the Iran deal, noting that more than two-thirds of the defensive systems protecting Israel were built by American hands and funded by American taxpayers.

"The problem for Israel is not Donald J. Trump, and anybody in Israel who thinks their biggest problem is the President of the United States needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in."

Unlike the traditional framing of the relationship - shared values, an unbreakable alliance and strategic partnership - Trump and Vance sounded unusually blunt and dismissive of what they appeared to view as Netanyahu's overreach in Palestine, Lebanon and Iran. Their remarks reflected a preference for pragmatic realism over ideologically driven confrontation.

Both leaders also reminded Israel of its deep dependence on roughly $4 billion in annual US military assistance.

Israel's ferocious bombing of targets in Lebanon on June 19 could hardly have come at a worse moment, as Iranian and American negotiators were preparing to head to Switzerland for talks. Trump's visible frustration with a recalcitrant Netanyahu also raises a broader question: has the US-backed vision of a Greater Israel under the Abraham Accords, at least for now, reached its limits?

Taken together, Trump's remarks during the G7 summit in France signaled a significant departure from traditional US rhetoric on Israel and Iran, establishing a new normal - a pragmatic shift driven largely by concerns over global energy security and supply chains.

Secondly, a relieved Iran insists that the terms of the peace framework are non-negotiable: a complete ceasefire, including Lebanon; the unfreezing of billions of dollars in Iranian assets; a scaling back of the US naval presence in the region; and continued Iranian-Omani oversight of the Strait of Hormuz.

In the words of Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi: "Trump walked in on his terms, he'll walk out on ours. No exits."

Thirdly, the US-Israeli aggression has come as a boon for the already deep Sino-Iranian partnership, articulated by none other than Iranian Parliament Speaker and Special Representative for China Affairs, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf.

Speaking to the Iran Chamber of Commerce, Qalibaf minced no words: "In any emerging regional alliance, Iran and China will be present together, and I am firmly moving in this direction. We need blocs and alliances. These blocs must definitely take shape. And I am moving forward on this path with power in all its dimensions: in technology, in the economy, and in politics."

This vision aligns closely with the Sino-Pakistan partnership and could open new geo-economic possibilities, particularly if the United States begins easing trade-related sanctions on Iran.

Lastly, the path to the MoU has catapulted Pakistan back onto the global radar - this time in a positive light. Nearly every foreign leader involved has acknowledged Pakistan's role. The front-page headlines in international media highlighting Islamabad's mediation efforts stand out as a moment of pride for Pakistanis.

Yet this achievement abroad has come at a considerable socio-political cost, accompanied by democratic backsliding at home. It raises an obvious question: what comes next?

Shining abroad is commendable. Far less desirable, however, is a domestic landscape marked by persistent political discontent and economic hardship for the overwhelming majority of citizens.

Pakistan's current image also reflects a new normal. The question is whether this moment - unlike previous geopolitical opportunities that were ultimately squandered - will encourage the country's rulers to recalibrate their approach and work toward genuine national inclusive political reconciliation.