US defence expert Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former Pentagon official, has delivered a strong critique of both the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Trump administration for permitting a $1 billion bailout to Pakistan.

Rubin’s central argument is that this financial support came despite Pakistan’s long-standing use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy and its deepening financial and strategic dependence on China.

Rubin asserts that by approving the IMF bailout, the US and IMF effectively provided indirect support to China, given Pakistan’s status as what he calls a “satrapy of China.” He highlights that the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has left Islamabad $40 billion in debt, and the Gwadar port project is emblematic of China’s broader strategic ambitions in the region.

According to Rubin, the IMF’s cash infusion not only props up Pakistan’s struggling economy but also helps China recoup its investments, making the bailout a “cover for Chinese debt”.

Rubin’s criticism is particularly pointed because the IMF’s decision came shortly after a deadly terror attack in Pahalgam, India, which was attributed to Pakistan-based militants and resulted in the execution of civilians.

He notes that, rather than distancing itself from the perpetrators, Pakistani military officers attended their funerals in uniform and subsequently launched attacks on India.

Rubin argues that granting financial aid to Pakistan at such a time undermines US efforts to de-escalate tensions between two nuclear-armed states and signals a disregard for American foreign policy objectives.

He further labels Pakistan as “one of the world’s most corrupt countries,” contending that IMF funds are unlikely to benefit ordinary citizens and instead perpetuate a system that enables terrorism and corruption.

In his view, the Trump administration’s failure to block the bailout represents a significant strategic blunder, especially given the US’s substantial financial contributions to the IMF-over $150 billion-and the leverage this should provide in shaping IMF decisions.

Rubin is also critical of President Trump’s diplomatic approach, particularly Trump’s claims of brokering peace between India and Pakistan by leveraging trade talks.

Rubin argues that this approach falsely equates India, a victim of terrorism, with Pakistan, a sponsor of terrorism, thereby undermining years of diplomatic progress and eroding Indian trust in the US as a reliable defence partner.

He warns that such unpredictability in US policy could jeopardise India’s ongoing shift from Russian to American defence equipment, a transition accelerated by Russia’s war in Ukraine and its resulting inability to fulfil defence contracts with India.

On the military front, Rubin characterises the recent India-Pakistan stand-off as a decisive victory for India. He dismisses Pakistani claims of inflicting costs on India, stating that Pakistan was forced to seek a ceasefire out of desperation, likening its actions to “running like a scared dog with its tail between its legs”.

Rubin suggests that the IMF bailout, coming amid such a context, further emboldens Pakistan’s military and undermines regional stability.

Michael Rubin’s detailed critique frames the IMF bailout as a misstep that not only rewards Pakistan’s destabilising behaviour and deepens its ties to China but also weakens US strategic interests in South Asia.

He concludes that the Trump administration’s handling of the situation has eroded Indian confidence in the US as a defence partner, potentially derailing the progress made by previous administrations in forging a robust US-India strategic partnership.

Based On ANI Report