In a recent Foreign Affairs article, Vipin Narang and his coauthor argue that Pakistan is preparing for an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) program. Their claim refers to the US intelligence reports. Claims such as these from Indian writers come at a time when Pakistan has carried the day at many forums. The writer claims that Pakistan is preparing for ICBMs because it fears an Iranian-like attack or an attack by the US on Pakistan on behalf of India.

Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine remains India-centric and does not envision the development of ICBMs.

Recently, Pakistan’s top General received great respect and was invited to the White House. Although delegations from India also visited the US, they did not receive an invitation from the White House. Also, the US General and a congressman acknowledged Pakistan’s historical relationship with the US. Pakistan was not put on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) despite India’s immense pressure and efforts. In Shanghai Cooperation Organization, India tried to isolate Pakistan but got itself isolated. Eight out of nine countries signed a joint statement referring to terrorism in Balochistan. Only India declined to sign. Writing this article at this point is part of the Indian blame game and misinformation.

According to a well-known security expert, Dr. Rabia Akhter that developing ICBMs is not aligned with Pakistan’s doctrine. Vipin’s claim is problematic and unsupported by the weight of historical and strategic evidence because Pakistan’s nuclear and missile program is Indian centered. Nowhere in official documents or statements is there an indication that Pakistan is seeking ranges beyond Shaheen III, which is only meant to cover around 2750 km. This range is enough to cover all of India, including the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Blaming Pakistan falsely for the ICBM program does not help in hiding or covering the Indian missile program. India has the capability of Agni V, which ranges 7000 km, and is looking for Agni VI, currently under development, projected to reach 9000-16000 km. A country with Hindutva’s extremist ideology with such capabilities can threaten any country in the world.

The article by Vipin Narang reflects India’s ongoing blame game amid recent diplomatic setbacks.

One should ask Indian writers, Why would the US attack Pakistan, which is a non-NATO ally? And why would the US attack Pakistan on behalf of India? Is there any such agreement between the US and India? Has the US given a guarantee to a nuclear weapon state (India) outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? The states that are under the US nuclear umbrella do not even know that the latter would risk its security in a conflict with a nuclear rival.

Why would Pakistan develop an ICBM to threaten the US or its allies when the two are enjoying cordial relations and do not pose any threats to each other?  Pakistan has never developed or deployed even half the range of an ICBM. It does not intend to threaten the US and its allies. It is never there in the US National Security Strategy as a threat like Iran or North Korea to the US.  But Vipin’s claim that the US may attack Pakistan is absurd.

Another angle can be that it is to drag Pakistan into a missile arms race with India. Pakistan must calculate its security environment properly. It must not be involved in any unnecessary arms race with India. Pakistan must counter all threats emanating from India properly and appropriately. Pakistan is faced with hybrid threats. Misinformation and propaganda should be countered in their way.

No strategic logic supports the claim that Pakistan seeks to deter or threaten the U.S. or its allies.

Threats emanating from the adversary are manifold. It is not only in the form of hardcore military action but also misinformation and propaganda, even at the academic level. Pakistan must adopt methods to counter misinformation at this level by synergizing the energy of university academia into national security.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.