Pakistan and China: A Strained Alliance?
Pakistan and China have maintained a strong strategic partnership, often described as an “all-weather friendship,” largely driven by the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. CPEC includes significant investments in Balochistan, such as the Gwadar Port and infrastructure projects, aimed at exploiting the region’s strategic location and resources. However, tensions have emerged due to security challenges, particularly from Baloch separatist groups like the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), which oppose Chinese presence and have attacked Chinese personnel and projects, viewing Beijing as complicit in Pakistan’s exploitation of Baloch resources.
The idea of Pakistan “betraying” China likely stems from recent developments where Pakistan’s actions—or perceived shifts in policy—might conflict with Chinese interests. For instance, Pakistan’s military cooperation with the U.S., such as the capture of an Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) terrorist in 2025 (praised by Trump), could raise eyebrows in Beijing, given China’s sensitivity to U.S. influence in its sphere. However, there’s no concrete evidence as of now that Pakistan has fundamentally betrayed China. The relationship remains economically and militarily intertwined, though Balochistan’s instability poses a persistent challenge.
U.S. Targets Balochistan’s Rare Minerals?
Balochistan is rich in natural resources, including copper, gold, gas, and potentially rare earth minerals, which are critical for modern technology and a focal point in U.S.-China competition. The U.S. has historically had little direct involvement in Balochistan’s mineral sector, with China dominating through projects like the Saindak Copper-Gold Mine and Reko Diq (though the latter involves Canadian firms too). The notion that the U.S. is “targeting” these minerals could reflect strategic interest rather than active exploitation. Posts on X and some analyses suggest the U.S. might seek to counter China’s dominance by engaging Pakistan’s military or offering investment, but this remains speculative without official policy moves.
Pakistan’s establishment might see U.S. interest as a bargaining chip, especially amid economic woes and reliance on IMF bailouts (often U.S.-influenced). However, any U.S. push would face hurdles: competition with China’s entrenched presence, security risks from Baloch insurgents, and Pakistan’s delicate balancing act between the two powers.
CIA vs. Trump Over Imran Khan?
Imran Khan, Pakistan’s former prime minister, has been a polarizing figure since his ouster in April 2022 and subsequent imprisonment. His supporters, including the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), allege U.S. interference—pointing to a leaked diplomatic cable (the “cypher”) from March 2022, where a U.S. official reportedly suggested Khan’s removal over his neutral stance on Russia’s Ukraine invasion. This has fueled narratives of CIA involvement, though no definitive proof ties the agency directly to his downfall.
Trump’s relationship with Khan adds another layer. During Trump’s first term, he met Khan multiple times (e.g., July 2019 at the White House), praising him as a “good friend” and leveraging Pakistan’s role in Afghan peace talks. Since Khan’s imprisonment, PTI supporters have hoped Trump, now back in office as of January 2025, might push for his release—bolstered by figures like Richard Grenell, Trump’s envoy, who tweeted “Release Imran Khan” in November 2024. Trump’s March 2025 praise for Pakistan’s counterterrorism efforts further stoked this optimism.
However, a “CIA vs. Trump” conflict is less clear. Some sources suggest a rift within U.S. policy circles: the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI favor maintaining ties with Pakistan’s military (seen as a reliable partner), while the Pentagon and State Department, alongside Trump’s “America First” faction, might prefer a civilian-led Pakistan to counter China and align with India. Khan’s release could fit this vision, but Trump’s silence on Khan during his 2024 campaign and focus on broader priorities (e.g., China, India) suggest he’s not personally invested. The CIA likely prioritizes stability over Khan’s fate, but no hard evidence confirms an active standoff with Trump.
Putting It Together
- Pakistan-China Dynamics: No outright betrayal, but security issues in Balochistan strain ties. Pakistan still leans on China economically.
- U.S. and Balochistan: The U.S. may eye Balochistan’s resources strategically, but China’s dominance and local unrest limit practical moves.
- CIA-Trump-Khan: Khan’s fate is a flashpoint for speculation. Trump could theoretically intervene, but broader U.S. interests—and military ties—may outweigh his personal sway.
