Pak-US ties after the midterm jolt

The midterm results mean Trump will face a Congress controlled by his political opponents when the new legislature convenes in January. Democrats will have greater powers to scrutinise the administration, launch investigations, summon officials and obstruct parts of the president's legislative agenda.

However, Trump remains president and retains considerable authority over foreign policy and military decisions. The reasons behind the Republican setback are particularly relevant to the future of the Iran conflict. This is significant for Pakistan.

Islamabad's role in facilitating contacts between Washington and Tehran has given it diplomatic relevance at a time when the conflict threatens regional stability and global energy supplies. The latest contacts also suggest that Pakistan's engagement with Washington is not limited to its relationship with Trump.

Its role in the Iran negotiations has brought it into contact with senior figures in the American administration, including Vice President JD Vance. But what does the Democratic victory mean for Pakistan's broader relationship with the US?

Under Trump, Islamabad managed to restore a degree of diplomatic space in Washington that had largely been missing in previous years. While the improvement in relations has not necessarily translated into major tangible economic or strategic gains, it has helped Pakistan emerge from diplomatic isolation in the US capital.

The Democratic victory could change that political environment. Democrats have traditionally supported closer strategic relations with India. Their control of Congress could give renewed momentum to those advocating closer US-India ties.

There is also another potentially sensitive dimension. A Democratic-controlled Congress could intensify scrutiny of Trump's business interests and those of his family, including their cryptocurrency ventures. Given reported business connections involving members of the Trump family and Pakistani-linked investors, such scrutiny could bring Pakistan into the political debate in Washington.

This would not automatically imply wrongdoing by Pakistan or Pakistani individuals, but could create an additional complication for Islamabad's engagement with Congress. Nevertheless, it would be premature to conclude that Pakistan is about to lose the diplomatic space it has gained.

Before Trump's re-election, few would have predicted that Washington would move towards closer engagement with Pakistan, particularly when US-India relations appeared firmly established. Yet the outcome was quite different. This experience underlines an important point: US policy towards Pakistan is not necessarily predetermined by the traditional preferences of either political party.

There may now be less enthusiasm for Pakistan among sections of the Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill. But Pakistan's strategic importance cannot simply be relegated because of a change in the balance of power in Washington.

Its geographical position, nuclear status, proximity to Iran and Afghanistan, relationship with China and influence in the wider region make it an important country in American strategic calculations. For Islamabad, the challenge will be to preserve the political gains made under Trump while building relationships with Democrats and other influential voices in Congress.

Pakistan cannot afford to depend on one American president or one political party. It needs a relationship with Washington that survives changes in political power.