
When US wanted Iran and China to help Pakistan in war against India
Declassified US State Department documents include minutes of a meeting held in Washington on December 9, 1971, which was chaired by Henry Kissinger, then national security advisor to US President Richard Nixon. In this meeting, the US officials worried about the lack of fuel reserves in West Pakistan and the fact that the Pakistani military would soon come to a standstill because its major fuel reserves had been destroyed by Indian attacks on the Karachi port.
Kissinger asked the officials if fuel supplies could be rushed from Tehran to Pakistan so that West Pakistan could be saved from being captured by India after the successful conquest of East Pakistan. In the same meeting, discussions were also held on supplying Pakistan with fighter aircraft from Iran and asking China to make threatening mocks on the border with India.
CIA Director Richard Helms informed the participants that in the last few hours, he had received a report from Karachi that the oil tanks there had been hit again, in the 12th or 13th air raid, and that six or eight of them had been burning.
'An ESSO representative has indicated that this means the loss of 50% of Karachi's oil reserves, which amounts to over 80% of the POL [petrol, oil, lubricants] for all of Pakistan. He estimates that they are left with a two-week supply, possibly less at the rate at which POL is now being consumed,' he said.
Kissinger asked the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas H Moorer for his estimate of the military situation. Moorer stated that in East Pakistan, in the absence of a ceasefire, it was just a matter of time until the Pakistan Army would be essentially ineffective.
'Their supplies are cut off and they have no air left. Any serious fighting could be over in ten days or two weeks, depending on whether the Paks continue to fight to the last man or whether they begin to surrender in large numbers, which does not seem to be in the cards now,' he said.
The admiral added that in West Pakistan, the Pakistanis are trying to occupy enough of Kashmir to give them a bargaining chip if and when there is a ceasefire. 'They are trying to block the main lines of communication. South of the Kashmir area, the Indians outnumber the Paks two-to-one, and they may plan to move south to Lahore, although there is no indication of that now. The best Pakistan can do is to gain as much control of Kashmir as possible,' he said.
Moorer added that the Pakistanis can operate for about three weeks or so. 'However, if there is a period of attrition, with no ceasefire, the Indians can hold out longer and the Paks have had it. Mrs. Gandhi has stated that her objective is to destroy the Pak military forces,' he said.
Kissenger asked whether in that case in a prolonged war, even if Pakistan got Kashmir, it would be unable to hold it and it would lead to the destruction of the Pakistan Army.
'Exactly. When East Pakistan is gone, the Indians will transfer their divisions to West-possibly four of the six divisions now in the East. This will take one to three weeks, depending on how much air they use. If the war continues to the end, the outcome for Pakistan is inevitable,' said Admiral Moorer.
At this point, John N Irwin, the undersecretary of state, mentioned a CIA paper, Implications of an Indian Victory Over Pakistan, that predicts the possible acceleration of the breakup tendencies in West Pakistan— possibly into as many as four separate states.
The admiral pointed out that the Indian objective was to take out the Pakistani tanks and planes. 'If they run out of POL and can't move, they'll be sitting ducks,' he said.
The meeting then discussed the possibility of trucking POL from Tehran. 'There is one road. We have one report that indicates that Chinese trucks are coming in but we don't know what they are carrying. Iran is the logical source of POL. I talked to the Turkish Chief of Staff at NATO and asked him how much assistance he thought Iran was prepared to give to Pakistan. He said he thought the Shah wanted to be helpful, but had one eye cocked on Iraq. In the end, he didn't believe the Shah would give significant assistance,' said the Admiral.
The documents also reveal that on instructions from Washington, a senior embassy official met the Shah of Iran in Tehran on December 8, 1971, to discuss the possibility of Iranian military support for Pakistan. The Shah stated that he had informed the Pakistani ambassador in Tehran that, in light of the treaty of friendship signed by India and the Soviet Union, he could not send Iranian aircraft and pilots to Pakistan. He was not prepared to risk a confrontation with the Soviet Union.
The Shah proposed an alternative way to support the hard-pressed Pakistani Air Force. He suggested that the United States urge King Hussein to send Jordanian F-104 fighters to Pakistan. The Shah in turn would send two squadrons of Iranian aircraft to Jordan to defend Jordan while Jordanian planes and pilots were in Pakistan engaged in support of fellow Muslims.
'The Embassy official indicated that, because of legal constraints regarding the use of military equipment provided by the United States, it would be difficult for officials in Washington to give permission for the transfer of the F-104s from Jordan to Pakistan, or to overlook their absence in Jordan. The Shah said that the United States could not hope to achieve the objective of bolstering Pakistan while maintaining that it was not involved in the effort,' the document says.
President Nixon, Attorney General John N Mitchell, and Henry Kissinger had earlier met on the afternoon of December 8, 1971, for an extended discussion of the crisis in South Asia.
Turning to the situation in East Pakistan, Kissinger warned that 'the Indian plan is now clear. They are going to move their forces from East Pakistan to the west. They will then smash the Pakistan land forces and air forces.' He added that India planned to 'annex the part of Kashmir that is in Pakistan.'
Kissinger went on to attribute to the Gandhi government the goal of balkanising West Pakistan into units such as Baluchistan and the Northwest Frontier Province. West Pakistan would become a state akin to Afghanistan and East Pakistan would equate with Bhutan.
Nixon said that he had given Prime Minister Indira Gandhi a warning during his dinner in Washington with her. 'I told her that any war would be very, very unacceptable.' Kissinger observed that any such warning obviously fell on deaf ears. 'She was determined to go.'
'As I look at this thing, the Chinese have got to move to that damn border. The Indians have got to get a little scared,' said Nixon. He instructed Kissinger to get a message to that effect to the Chinese.
Kissinger suggested that another pressure move would be to move a US aircraft carrier force into the Bay of Bengal. Summarising the decisions they were considering, Kissinger said, 'We should get a note to the Chinese, we should move the carrier to the Bay of Bengal.' Nixon interjected, 'I agree.'
Kissinger also pointed to the threat to West Pakistan, 'At this stage, we have to prevent an Indian attack on West Pakistan.' Nixon agreed. Kissinger continued, 'We have to maintain the position of withdrawal from all of Pakistan.' He stated that by introducing its military power into the equation, in the form of a carrier and other units from the Seventh Fleet, the US was seeking to prevent 'a Soviet stooge, supported by Soviet arms' from overrunning an ally.
Nixon returned to his conviction that China could exercise a decisive restraining influence on India. 'The Chinese thing I still think is a card in the hole there. I tell you a movement of even some Chinese toward that border could scare those goddamn Indians to death.' Kissinger agreed, 'As soon as we have made the decision here, we can then talk to the Chinese.'
Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger engaged in conversation outside the Oval Office. Source: US National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials Project Photo Collection)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
India slams UK parliamentary report on ‘Transnational Repression' as baseless, cites dubious sources
NEW DELHI: India on Friday strongly rejected a British parliamentary panel's report that accused it of engaging in "transnational repression' within the United Kingdom, calling the allegations baseless and rooted in anti-India propaganda. 'We have seen the references to India in the report and categorically reject these baseless allegations,' said Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal in a strong rebuttal. The UK report, published by a parliamentary committee, had cited India among several countries allegedly involved in targeting dissidents abroad. However, New Delhi dismissed the credibility of the report, asserting that its claims were based on 'unverified and dubious sources.' 'These claims stem from unverified and dubious sources, predominantly linked to proscribed entities and individuals with a clear, documented history of anti-India hostility,' Jaiswal said. 'The deliberate reliance on discredited sources calls into question the credibility of the report itself.'


Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
'No formal talks yet with US on F-35 buy': Government in Lok Sabha
NEW DELHI: India has not had any formal talks with the US over the purchase of fifth-generation F-35 fighter jets, the external affairs ministry informed the Lok Sabha Friday. Responding to a written query, MoS (MEA) Kirti Vardhan Singh said the India-US joint statement following the meeting between PM Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump in Feb 2025 had mentioned that US will undertake a review of its policy on selling fifth-generation fighters (such as the F-35) and undersea systems to India. "No formal discussions have been held as yet on this issue," added the minister. A news agency reported on Thursday that India had told the US that it is not interested in purchasing the F-35 jets. The minister was also asked whether the govt has reviewed the dynamics relating to US military assistance proposals and India's autonomy in terms of foreign policy, given its strategic implications, especially in a conflict scenario involving third-party mediation. The minister responded by saying that the India-US partnership has benefited from growing strategic convergence & cooperation and that India closely evaluates all its external partnerships, including those in the defence and strategic domains, through the prism of its national interest and commitment to strategic autonomy. "India-US Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership is anchored in mutual trust, shared interests, goodwill and robust engagement between our citizens," he said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like San Ramon: How Much Does It Cost To Replace Old Windows? Beautiful Energy-Efficient Windows Learn More Undo As regards third-party mediation, the minister said that it has been India's longstanding position that any outstanding issue with Pakistan will be discussed only at a bilateral level. "This has been made clear to all nations, including by the PM to the US president," he said.


Economic Times
18 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump-Modi talks key to trade deal: Former Asst USTR
Synopsis A reset in India-US trade talks may be needed, potentially through a conversation between President Trump and Prime Minister Modi, according to Mark Linscott. Despite new tariffs and criticisms from Trump, Linscott sees the situation as a "hiccup," emphasizing the US desire for a short-term agreement followed by a longer-term bilateral trade deal. New Delhi: India-US talks on forging a bilateral trade deal may require a reset through a conversation at the highest level, said Mark Linscott, senior advisor, US-India Strategic Partnership Forum and a former Assistant US Trade said there is a strong desire on the US side to make progress and conclude a short-term agreement, followed by a longer-term bilateral trade deal."At this point, I think a conversation between the President (Donald Trump) and Prime Minister (Narendra Modi) can clear the air and possibly even set the terms for a deal," Linscott, who led trade negotiations under the previous Trump regime, told however, said this may require a cooling-off period once new tariffs are in place, followed by a phone call between President Trump and Prime Minister Modi."I'm a strong believer in never saying never, particularly when it involves the United States and India. We've seen over and over again how Trump can reverse course on a dime," he pointed out. "However, the next few days and weeks will be key in moving on, and I don't even rule out a trade deal along the lines of those with Japan, the EU and Korea during this period," he had on Thursday said India's tariffs are among the highest in the world and slammed its ties with Russia calling both their economies dead, hours after announcing a 25% tariff on imports from New Delhi plus a penalty for trade with Moscow. A US trade team is scheduled to visit New Delhi on August 25 to continue talks on the proposed trade deal. The two sides are engaged in talks for a bilateral trade agreement (BTA), the first tranche of which is to be concluded by October with the aim to more than double the bilateral trade in goods and services to $500 billion by 2030 from the current $191 termed the latest development only a "hiccup" in US-India trade negotiations."...it requires a steady hand on the Indian side to signal that it is committed to continuing negotiations," he said. "But Trump remains a deal maker, and I believe there is a strong desire on the US side to make progress and conclude a short-term agreement and a longer-term bilateral trade agreement, " he added.