For the last two decades, the US has faced a strategic dilemma with Pakistan.
During its two-decade-long war in Afghanistan (2001-2021), Washington could never determine if Islamabad was really its partner on the ‘War on Terror’ or a “back stabber,” as many experts put it.
Pakistan was designated a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) by the U.S. in 2004, providing benefits such as enhanced military training, weapons procurement, and security cooperation.
At the same time, Pakistan has faced U.S. sanctions on its ballistic missile program.
In December 2024, the U.S. government imposed sanctions on four Pakistani entities for their alleged involvement in developing long-range missiles, also known as Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), capable of traveling more than 5,500 km.
In 2025, President Donald Trump reset ties and hosted Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir at the White House, becoming the first-ever US President to host a Pakistani Army Chief who was not also the head of state.
He described him as his “favorite Field Marshal,” signed a US$500 million Energy & Minerals deal, and approved a US$686 million deal for Pakistani F-16 upgrades.
However, Washington’s strategic dilemma vis-à-vis Islamabad deepened once again when Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) of the United States, described Pakistan among the biggest nuclear threats to the US homeland.
Pakistan, however, has always described its nuclear and ballistic missile program as primarily and solely targeted at India and has dismissed US assessments as “biased and politically motivated.”
So, is the US, given its long strategic dilemma towards Pakistan, failing to read Islamabad’s intentions? Conversely, if the US intelligence assessment is correct, then what exactly is Pakistan trying to achieve by building ICBMs capable of hitting the US mainland?
Pakistan: An Emerging Threat To the US
Presenting the 2026 Annual Threat Assessment before the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 18, Gabbard said, “The intelligence community assesses that Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan have been researching and developing an array of novel, advanced, or traditional missile delivery systems, with nuclear and conventional payloads, that put our homeland within range.”
Of the five countries Gabbard named, four (Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran) are widely recognised as US adversaries. It is Pakistan, a major non-NATO US ally, that is a bit of an outlier here.
On Pakistan specifically, Gabbard told lawmakers that “Pakistan’s long-range ballistic missile development potentially could include ICBMs with the range capable of striking the homeland”.
The written assessment about Pakistan, however, went even further.
“Pakistan continues to develop increasingly sophisticated missile technology that provides its military the means to develop missile systems with the capability to strike targets beyond South Asia, and if these trends continue, ICBMs that would threaten the U.S.”
Furthermore, the report highlighted that Pakistan, alongside China, North Korea, and Russia, would “probably continue to research, develop, and field delivery systems that will increase their ranges and accuracy, challenge US missile defences, and provide new WMD-use options”.
The assessment projected that threats to the US homeland could expand from more than 3,000 missiles today to at least 16,000 by 2035.
Notably, this is the first time that the Trump administration has confirmed that Pakistan is developing missiles to strike the US with nuclear weapons.
Earlier, the Biden administration imposed sanctions on four Pakistani entities in December 2024 over their involvement in the alleged development of long-range missiles.
The banned entities included the National Development Complex (NDC), a state enterprise, located in Islamabad. Also listed were three private entities: Akhtar and Sons Private Limited, Affiliates International, and Rockside Enterprise, all based in Karachi, that presumably support the NDC by supplying equipment for missile development.
The US alleged that Pakistan was trying to develop large rocket motors for long-range ICBMs.
Jon Finer, then US deputy national security adviser, said at the time that if current trends continued, Pakistan would have “the capability to strike targets well beyond South Asia, including in the United States”.
Commenting on the development, Christopher Clary, a political scientist at the University at Albany, said that Gabbard’s statement clarifies the Trump administration’s position on Pakistan’s ballistic missile program.
“It was unclear up until now whether the Trump admin’s quiet on alleged Pakistan ICBM development arose because the issue had gone away, perhaps because Pakistan quietly had settled US concerns. But the US intelligence community assesses apparently that the issue persists,” Clary wrote on platform X.
However, in 2024, Pakistan’s Foreign Office (MoFA) had termed Washington’s decision to sanction Pakistan’s entities “unfortunate and biased.”
Pakistan’s ballistic missile and nuclear program is directed towards India only, it said.
Similarly, Jalil Abbas Jilani, a former Pakistani ambassador to Washington, rejected Gabbard’s new remarks in a post on X.
“Tulsi Gabbard’s assertion at the Senate hearing that the US homeland is within range of Pakistan’s nuclear and conventional missiles is not grounded in strategic reality. Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is India-specific, aimed at maintaining credible deterrence in South Asia, not projecting power globally,” he said.
However, Pakistan’s longest-range ballistic missile, Shaheen-III, has a range of 2,750 km. This means that the whole of India is already within the range of Pakistan’s longest-range ballistic missiles.
So, the question is, if Islamabad could already target the whole of India with its ballistic missiles, then why is Pakistan developing even longer-range ICBMs, even at the risk of antagonizing the US and the threat of economic sanctions?
In a June 2025 article in Foreign Affairs magazine, Vipin Narang, a former US Department of Defense official, and Pranay Vaddi, a former US National Security Council official, offered possible motivations for Islamabad to develop long-range ICBMs capable of reaching the US mainland.
“Although Pakistan claims its nuclear program is strictly focused on deterring India, which enjoys conventional military superiority, U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the Pakistani military is developing an ICBM that could reach the continental United States,” it said.
“In acquiring such a capability, Pakistan might be seeking to deter the United States from either trying to eliminate its arsenal in a preventive attack or intervening on India’s behalf in a future Indian-Pakistani conflict.”
Narang and Vaddi make a compelling argument that even when India remains the primary target for Pakistani nukes and ballistic missiles, Islamabad would still try to develop ICBMs, potentially reaching the US mainland, to blunt any future attempt by Washington to dictate anything to Pakistan, or to ensure that the US is not able to arm-twist Islamabad against its interests.
Regardless, irrespective of Islamabad’s intentions, the US would have to treat Pakistan as an adversary if it tries to develop ICBMs.
No other country in the world with an ICBM capability is treated as an ally by the US.
Furthermore, Pakistan’s close defense ties to China and its increasing economic dependence on Beijing make Pakistan’s ballistic missile program even more problematic.
Pakistan imports over 80% of its weapons from China, and Beijing is investing over US$60 billion in the country under its China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
Pakistan already has an existential dependence on China.
Additionally, Pakistan’s horrible nuclear proliferation record is another worry. Pakistan has leaked nuclear secrets to Libya, North Korea, and Iran. Islamabad has also frequently marketed its nukes as an ‘Islamic Bomb’.
Pakistan’s recent mutual defense pact with Saudi Arabia does not explicitly mention nuclear bombs, but Pakistani analysts have said that it covers the full spectrum of our defense capabilities.
A failing economy, a terrible nuclear proliferation record, a track record of funding and arming Islamist, radical, terror groups, and providing safe havens to the Taliban when the US was fighting its ‘War on Terror’ in Afghanistan, make Islamabad’s nuclear and ballistic missile program deeply problematic, despite its major non-NATO US-ally status.
Gabbard has rightly bracketed Pakistan, alongside known US adversaries such as China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran.
- Contact EurAsian Times at editor (at) eurasiantimes.com
- Follow EurAsian Times on Google News
