A Chessboard Laid at the White House Lunch: Checkmate or Pawn?
By: Raja Zahid Akhtar Khanzada
Washington, D.C.-Where the shadows of white pillars stretch across the destinies of nations, today a long table hosts two figures:One, a symbol of power without a crown. The other, a silent envoy of the state, draped in uniform, Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir and U.S. President Donald Trump. This meeting is being held under the banner of “cooperation,” but the reality wears another face. The true conversation is about Iran. The central question: regime change. The United States wants Pakistan to become a silent partner in this Zionist-driven operation a partner in a project rooted in strategic terrorism.
To what extent Pakistan will become complicit in this plan remains to be seen. But one adage often heard in America must be remembered: “Nothing in America comes for free.”Because people, lured by the trap of “free,” end up buying things they neither need nor can afford.
This lunch and this “package” or “deal” offered to the Field Marshal, it’s not free.It’s a bargain. And the price will be paid by those who inherited geography, but were never granted sovereignty. The U.S. will demand: silent support in regime change operations in Iran, protection of American interests in the region, and indirect backing of Zionist aggression against Iran. And in return? A few mineral deals, some aid packages, military supplies, and as always bags of dollars.
These very dollars have rained down in the Pashtun belt in the form of drone strikes. Where the value of a “strategic depth” outweighs the worth of a child’s corpse. Where, even after the war is “won,” the people still lose and Papa John’s delivery is reserved only for the homes of generals. And America itself? It, too, is conflicted.
Trump is under pressure not from his enemies, but from within his own Republican Party, asking: “Why should we fight Israel’s war? Why should we spend our tax dollars on someone else’s blood?” That’s why America doesn’t want to fight directly anymore. It needs contract killers now. And history bears witness: From General Zia to General Musharraf, Pakistan has fulfilled that role all too well. Under their rule, the nation suffered irreparable damage. Zia gave birth to the Taliban. Musharraf adopted the Afghan war. Dollars were earned, but the nation was shattered. Both eras were ruled by dictatorship. And even then, decisions were made in uniform. But today the situation is different. Now Pakistan claims to be under democracy albeit limping, fragile. Yet the General still possesses the real front. Trump knows this too. He knows that decisions are not made where votes are cast, but where uniforms command. He knows that even by brandishing the fear of Imran Khan, he can still extract obedience. So now the question is: Will we once again fall into the same trap? Will we share lunch with an empire, only to sell out our own neighborhood? Will we betray China, the same ally that helped us repel Indian aggression? This is a defining moment in history. And within the state’s corridors, there is a silent strain. Khawaja Asif’s tweet in which he hurled words at Reza Pahlavi more wounding than bullets is perhaps not merely emotional, but may reflect a strategic signal from the military leadership. Because when such words emerge from the mouth of an experienced politician and the current defense minister, their echoes are not confined to social media they reverberate through embassies, capital cities, and military briefings. This reaction was aimed at a “king” who seeks a crown not from his people, but from imperial powers. Raza Shah Pahlavi II, exiled by his own fate, sat before the BBC proclaiming that the Iranian people are awake, and that with a signal, he shall return and bring “democracy” to the homeland. But in Pakistan, where generations have bled to free us from kings like Zia and Musharraf, such theatrics are now only viewed with bitter irony. This Is Not Just Anger It Is a Line Drawn in the Sand That is why Khawaja Asif’s outcry is not merely an expression of anger . It is a political act, a cry of nationalism, and an effort to rip the masks off the faces of imperial actors. In this, he said: “Show some balls and go back… Put your money where your arse is, bloody parasitical imperial whore.” This sentence — as undiplomatic as it may sound — is just as close to truth as it is far from protocol. It reflects a historical pattern where, once again inside Iran, royalist loyalists, the Israeli agenda, and American interests are merging together to launch yet another so called “freedom” movement but this time, the eyes of the spectators are wide open. And Pakistan?
This time, it cannot remain a spectator. Because if we do not question proxy kings like Raza Shah today, then tomorrow, some other “prince of submission” will be polishing a crown to be placed on someone in our own homeland. This tweet was not just a response . it was a flaming sword, falling upon those imperial faces who, in the name of freedom, rights, and awakening, seek to turn people into mere fuel for global markets. This is not just fury it is a glimpse of a larger trend: the desire to pivot back toward China and Russia. This trend may not be ideological, it may be driven by interest but at the very least, it points toward a path that favors trade over gunpowder, progress over destruction, and dignity over dependency.
Yet this conflict is not simple. As it unfolds, it will evolve into a deep contradiction , within the state,, within society, and within the national consciousness.
Among scholars and political thinkers, a consensus is emerging: Choosing the American camp at this moment means choosing war, destruction and ultimately, Pakistan’s turn will come too.
Even China’s camp is not a complete answer but when the choice is between empire and equilibrium, then any wise and conscious mind, anyone who listens not to Hanuman Singh’s hymns but to the calls of Allama Iqbal, will choose China. Because with China, at least ,dialogue is possible, development is possible, and the regional dignity is still intact.
What we need is: equitable resource distribution, an end to class-based systems, and the rehabilitation of underdeveloped regions. And all this cannot be achieved through military lunches and transactional deals. It is only possible through democratic struggle, and through the rise of a conscious, anti-imperialist national narrative. Because if we now align ourselves with the American camp, and place Israel’s war upon our shoulders,then history will remember us as a nation that mortgaged its land for dollars, sold its culture, and offered its children to the fire of endless war. And in the end know this, Field Marshal:
We are not willing to pay for your lunch with our blood. The nation, at this moment, is saying: Homeland or the grave. Our land, our heritage, our region they are not for sale.
This is a vow, a duty,a declaration: We are a living nation not one that makes deals. This is not just a political reaction. This is an ideological line, and it is this line that compels us to choose: Will we once again strike deals with self-appointed “kings of Iran” and mercenaries of the Afghan war? Or will we elevate these ideological words into our national narrative,
where imperialism is not only defeated by policy, but also by the force of language?
