BEFORE he became president, Donald Trump could scarcely have been more insulting about Saudi Arabia. They push gays off buildings, he said, and want women as slaves. And he railed against the cost of US military support for the country: “Tell Saudi Arabia and others,” he once tweeted, “that we want (demand!) free oil for the next 10 years or we will not protect their private Boeing 747s. Pay up!”

The contrast between his lashing out at the Saudis and, on his recent visit to Riyadh, bowing his head before King Salman could scarcely have been more acute. And there was more. Having previously castigated others for failing to use the term ‘Islamic terrorism’, Trump chose not to use the phrase himself, instead describing violent jihadists as “barbaric criminals”. And having once threatened to ban all foreign Muslims from entering the US, he now spoke of Islam as one the three great faiths.

But it’s surely clear by now that Trump does not regard consistency as a political virtue. And many of his supporters at home (his electoral base remains intact) and his interlocutors abroad seem to agree with him. Far from taking umbrage at past insults, the Saudis plastered Trump’s image all over Riyadh as part of the warmest welcome imaginable. National interest, it seems, comes before pride. The key moment in the Saudi visit was Trump’s speech on Islam. And Pakistanis would do well to read it closely for three reasons.

Trump’s speech was supportive of one side of the sectarian divide.

First, Trump made it abundantly clear that he has no problem with authoritarian regimes as long as they are fighting violent jihadists. While that was already clear from his close relationship with Egypt’s Gen Sisi, the policy has now been laid out for all to see. America, as he put it, “will not seek to impose our way of life on others”. There is little reason to believe that Trump would oppose a Pakistani coup leader vowing to tackle violent jihadism.

Secondly, there could be problems for GHQ if Trump listens to those of his recently appointed White House advisers who believe that, while the Pakistan Army has made great sacrifices fighting violent jihadists in the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, it has simultaneously failed to confront other militants. Trump wants all or nothing — no ifs, no buts. “Every country in the region has an absolute duty to ensure that terrorists find no sanctuary on their soil,” he said.

But the third point is perhaps the most important. Trump’s speech was openly supportive of one side of the Middle East’s sectarian divide. Given the role that Saudis played in 9/11, many are baffled as to why the US is so friendly to Saudi Arabia. In times past, it was generally argued that the close ties between Riyadh and Washington reflected the US need for Saudi oil. While that might have been true for many years, the shale revolution and America’s new energy self-sufficiency has rendered the argument somewhat obsolete.

And while Riyadh basks in Washington’s reflected glory, Tehran, for a number of reasons, continues to feel its ire. The decision of Iran’s revolutionary leaders in 1979 to tolerate the abduction of American diplomats in Tehran was a humiliation that many in Washington have not forgiven. And then there is the Israel factor. Iran remains one of the few major powers in the Middle East that has not descended into chaos. That, combined with its open hostility to Israel, makes the country a significant threat to the US’s closest ally.

“No discussion of stamping out this threat would be complete without mentioning the government that gives terrorists all three — safe harbour financial backing and the social standing needed for recruitment,” Trump declared. “It is also a regime that is responsible for so much instability in the region. I am speaking, of course, of Iran,” he said.

As many Muslims realise, sectarian violence is an important reason for the contemporary international weakness of Muslim-majority societies. True, there are other factors. Poor governance, corruption, stultified education systems and the failure to uphold the rule of law have all played their part. But, for all that, the struggle between Shias and Sunnis has weakened Muslim countries and undermined the efforts of Islamists who are trying to make a bigger global impact.

President Trump has clearly signalled that, far from trying to reconcile sectarian divisions, he is backing one side. Overlooking Saudi Arabia’s role in financing highly sectarian educational institutions around the world, he said: “Iran has fuelled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror.”

For Pakistan, the implications are clear. As sectarian divisions in the Middle East deepen, there is a significantly increased risk of Pakistani sectarian outfits attracting more foreign funding. And that means there is a possibility of a return to the situation in the days of Gen Zia when foreign-backed militant proxies spilled each other’s blood on Pakistani soil.

The writer is a British journalist and author of Pakistan: Eye of the Storm.

Published in Dawn, May 25th, 2017