US President Donald Trump may have unintentionally reignited one of Pakistan’s most sensitive political debates through a single social media post, after he publicly mentioned Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir while completely omitting Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif from a list of world leaders he claimed to have recently consulted regarding the expansion of the Abraham Accords.
The omission immediately triggered widespread discussion because it appeared to reinforce a long-standing perception both inside and outside Pakistan: that the country’s military establishment often exercises more influence over foreign policy, strategic decision-making, and national security matters than its elected civilian leadership.
In a lengthy post on Truth Social, Trump discussed his efforts to expand the Abraham Accords following any future peace settlement involving Iran. While listing leaders he had allegedly spoken with over the weekend, Trump named several heads of state and influential regional figures, including Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and several others.
However, when mentioning Pakistan, Trump did not refer to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif at all. Instead, he specifically named Army Chief Asim Munir, drawing immediate attention to the unusual diplomatic framing.
The omission was widely interpreted by political observers as more than a simple oversight. Many analysts viewed it as an indirect acknowledgment of the military’s dominant role within Pakistan’s power structure, especially regarding international relations and security policy.
The issue became even more politically sensitive because Trump’s broader proposal involved urging several Muslim-majority nations to formally recognise Israel under an expanded Abraham Accords framework. Trump reportedly wants countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt to become part of a larger regional diplomatic arrangement connected to ongoing negotiations involving Iran.
For Pakistan, however, the issue is exceptionally delicate. Unlike countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, which established diplomatic relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords, Pakistan has never recognised Israel since its independence in 1947. Islamabad has consistently maintained that recognition of Israel can only occur after the establishment of an independent Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders.
That long-standing policy makes Trump’s proposal politically explosive inside Pakistan. Any move toward recognising Israel without substantial progress on Palestinian statehood could provoke major domestic backlash, including protests from religious groups, political opponents, and sections of the public strongly supportive of the Palestinian cause.
For Pakistan’s civilian government, such a shift could become politically disastrous. At the same time, some analysts argue that periods of political instability in Pakistan have historically strengthened the military establishment’s influence over national affairs, making the issue even more sensitive.
According to a report by Axios, Trump allegedly floated the idea of broader recognition of Israel during a high-level conference call involving Pakistan and several Arab leaders over the weekend. The report claimed the proposal was met largely with silence from participants. Trump reportedly joked afterwards by asking whether everyone was still on the line following his suggestion regarding the Abraham Accords.
The silence itself reflected the difficult diplomatic position facing Pakistan. Islamabad has recently attempted to balance several competing strategic relationships simultaneously. On one side, Pakistan seeks to maintain positive ties with Iran while also positioning itself as a possible intermediary between Tehran and Washington. On the other side, Pakistan remains economically and diplomatically dependent on support from Gulf monarchies and cannot afford a serious deterioration in relations with the United States.
This balancing act has become increasingly complicated after years of fluctuating US-Pakistan relations following the American withdrawal from Afghanistan. Pakistan’s leadership is aware that openly confronting Trump or rejecting his diplomatic initiatives too aggressively could carry economic and strategic consequences.
At the same time, even limited movement toward recognising Israel could trigger enormous domestic anger and destabilise Pakistan’s internal political environment.
Trump’s decision to highlight Asim Munir instead of Shehbaz Sharif also reinforced perceptions regarding the army chief’s growing international profile. Munir has increasingly emerged as one of Pakistan’s most influential decision-makers during major regional crises, particularly concerning Iran, Afghanistan, security cooperation with the United States, and relations with Gulf states.
Several reports have suggested that Munir has cultivated direct communication channels with figures close to Trump’s political circle. Trump himself reportedly praised Munir during previous interactions and meetings, further elevating speculation regarding the army chief’s importance in US-Pakistan strategic discussions.
As a result, Trump’s post did more than simply discuss the Abraham Accords. For many observers, it unintentionally highlighted the deeper power dynamics inside Pakistan, where the military establishment is often viewed as the ultimate authority on major geopolitical and security decisions, regardless of the civilian government formally in office.
Pakistan now finds itself trapped between conflicting pressures. Rejecting Trump’s push regarding the Abraham Accords too strongly risks damaging ties with Washington during a period of regional instability and economic vulnerability. Yet moving toward recognition of Israel, even cautiously, could ignite widespread domestic political unrest.
The controversy surrounding Trump’s omission of Shehbaz Sharif, therefore, became symbolic of a larger and enduring question within Pakistan’s political system: who truly controls the country’s most important decisions — the elected civilian leadership or the military establishment operating behind it.
