WASHINGTON: Marking Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism would be a deeply unreasonable step, says Michael Krepon, co-founder of the leading US think tank, Stimson Center.
Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation, another think tank in Washington, also does not want "Pakistan to be declared a state sponsor of terrorism this year," but urges the Trump administration to "keep the opportunity open for the future." But in the interim period, she suggests "imposing conditions on military assistance and withdrawing Pakistan's Major Non-Nato Ally Status."
Former US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Daniel Feldman, said that in the past, the cessation of aid to Pakistan was tested, and it did not bring the desired changes in the country's attitude.
"The leverage that this threat provides will be lost along with its execution, along with the likelihood of taking remedial measures," Mr. Crepon said while opposing the proposal that Pakistan be declared a state sponsor of terrorism.
The Trump administration called for "keep the choice open for the future"
"The problem of terrorism, as important as it is, is less consistent than the nuclear issue. Rawalpindi figured this out, which helps explain why he does not fulfill promises to take more than cosmetic actions against the leadership of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad," he writes in a recent post on this issue.
Read More: In The US Congress, Anti-Pak Bill Presented
John Gill, an associate professor at the University of National Defense in Washington, warns against "starting all over again" and suggested changing the current US policy toward Pakistan in such a way that it encourages Islamabad to do more in the war on terrorism.
The opinions expressed in recent reports and in discussions in various American think tanks follow the media reports that the administration of President Donald Trump, who came to power on January 20, is preparing a new policy for the Pakistan and Afghanistan region.
While the administration was intentionally silent on this issue, but it began consultations with legislators, experts and scientists.
Earlier this month, former Ambassador Hussein Haqqani was also invited to the State Department for consultations.
Ms. Curtis, who co-authored a study paper on Pakistan with Mr. Haqqani last month, could also have a significant impact on the new policy. Some media reports that the Trump administration can hire her as the new assistant secretary of state for South Asia.
In a joint report, Ms. Curtis and Mr. Haqqani argue that "the aim of the Trump administration's policy towards Pakistan should be to make it more and more expensive for Pakistani leaders to use the strategy of supporting terrorist intermediaries to achieve regional strategic goals. There should be no ambiguity that the US considers Pakistan's strategy to support terrorist intermediaries as an achievement of regional strategic advantage as a threat to US interests. "
These two authors and other experts suggested putting pressure on Pakistan to force it to change its Afghan policy. They argue that Pakistan continues to support the Afghan military network of Haqqani, which does not allow the US to fully implement its own policy towards Afghanistan and restore peace in a war-ravaged country. Pakistani policy, they argue, also caused the death of hundreds of American soldiers in Afghanistan.
Mr. Crepon objected to this argument, stating that "the future of Pakistan for the United States is more important than the future of Afghanistan. Any US policy that seeks to sacrifice the former for the latter, as some Pakistani squeezers and plague-makers seem to require, insanity, "he writes.
"One of Washington's pipe dreams is the belief that Pakistan can be muscled into subordinating its own interests in Afghanistan to those of the United States," he says.