(Abdul Basit Alvi)
The March 18, 2026 testimony of Tulsi Gabbard before the Senate Intelligence Committee heightened tensions by claiming the United States could face a potential threat from Pakistani nuclear missiles, placing Pakistan alongside Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran as states developing systems capable of reaching the US and warning its program might include ICBMs, contributing to a projected global arsenal exceeding 16,000 missiles by 2035. This assessment is challenged as a misinterpretation that ignores geography, missile range realities, and Pakistan’s defensive posture, arguing instead that India’s nuclear ambitions are the more immediate concern; a strike from South Asia to the US would require 10,000–13,000 km range, while Pakistan’s longest-range Shaheen-III reaches about 2,750 km and is designed to cover India, with other systems like Shaheen-II, Ghauri, Shaheen-I, Abdali, Babur, and Ra’ad having shorter regional ranges, whereas India’s Agni-V approaches intercontinental range and the under-development Agni-VI is estimated at 6,000–12,000 km with MIRV capability, indicating a program extending beyond the region.
Pakistan’s doctrine reinforces this regional focus, with Jalil Abbas Jilani rejecting claims it can target the US and emphasizing an India-centric deterrence policy, supported by analysts like Tughral Yamin and Rabia Akhtar, who argue US assessments rely on worst-case speculation and overlook India’s longer-range capabilities; Pakistan’s forces are structured to deter India and would gain nothing from targeting the US. In contrast, India’s expanding arsenal, including Agni-V, Agni-VI, and submarine-launched K-5 systems on Arihant-class submarines, is portrayed as enabling global reach and second-strike capability, raising broader concerns, while Pakistan’s restraint and crisis management—praised by Donald Trump after the May 2025 conflict—contrast with India’s assertiveness; meanwhile, Pakistan-US relations have strengthened through renewed counterterrorism cooperation, a July 2025 trade agreement reducing tariffs, joint oil development, a $686 million F-16 upgrade package, high-level engagements including Field Marshal Asim Munir’s White House meeting with Trump, and Pakistan’s role in mediating US-Iran tensions, making Gabbard’s claims appear misaligned with ongoing US strategic priorities.
The narrative put forward by Tulsi Gabbard regarding a Pakistani missile threat to the United States is a construct built on a foundation of flawed assumptions, ignored data, and a willful disregard for the established strategic doctrines of the nations involved. The facts are irrefutable: Pakistan’s missile systems, with a maximum range of 2,750 kilometers, are defensive in nature and calibrated solely to deter its existential adversary, India. Meanwhile, India is actively developing and deploying a fleet of intercontinental ballistic missiles like the Agni-VI, with ranges extending up to 12,000 kilometers, alongside a sophisticated naval nuclear triad designed for global power projection. The argument that Pakistan’s short-range arsenal poses a threat to the US mainland defies the basic laws of physics and geography, while the suggestion that India’s rapidly expanding ICBM program is somehow a regional or benign development is a dangerous delusion. Pakistan’s history is one of restraint; it has never initiated a conflict and has repeatedly demonstrated its maturity in de-escalating crises—a fact acknowledged and appreciated by President Trump and the international community. The current state of US-Pakistan relations is remarkably robust, characterized by deepening economic ties, renewed security cooperation, and mutual respect at the highest levels of leadership. Characters like Tulsi Gabbard, who seek to disrupt this trajectory with misleading assumptions, do so at the peril of regional and global stability. It is incumbent upon those in positions of intelligence and power to look beyond the biases and the flawed assessments of the past and recognize the truth: the real threat to peace in South Asia, and potentially beyond, emanates not from Pakistan’s defensive deterrence but from India’s unchecked nuclear ambitions and aggressive weaponization. The United States would be wise to align its threat assessments with reality, focusing on the nation in the region that is actively building the capabilities to strike the American homeland, rather than the one that has consistently proven itself a partner for peace.
