The latest U.S. sanctions targeting Pakistan’s missile development program, announced on December 18, 2024, mark yet another instance of Washington’s inability—or unwillingness—to grasp the complex strategic realities of South Asia. These sanctions, which target the National Development Complex (NDC) and three Karachi-based entities, Akhtar and Sons Private Limited, Affiliates International, and Rockside Enterprise, are framed as measures to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. However, a closer analysis reveals these measures are emblematic of a policy approach that is not only flawed but counterproductive to the stated objectives of stability and non-proliferation.
This move by the U.S. is both misguided and steeped in hypocrisy. By singling out Pakistani entities and attributing undue reliance on external procurement, these sanctions attempt to undermine Pakistan’s decades-long efforts to build a self-reliant missile program. The Shaheen-series ballistic missiles and other components of Pakistan’s deterrence capability are products of indigenous innovation, borne out of necessity in a hostile regional environment.
The sanctions represent a fundamental mischaracterization of Pakistan’s missile program and its strategic imperatives. The entities targeted, including the NDC, are part of an infrastructure that serves Pakistan’s legitimate defense needs in a hostile environment. The country’s commitment to maintaining a credible deterrence capability is a rational response to India’s aggressive military modernization and destabilizing actions, such as its pursuit of missile defense systems, hypersonic technology, and growing stockpiles of fissile material. India’s ballistic missile advancements, coupled with its growing stockpile of nuclear warheads, continue to shift the regional balance of power. The U.S., however, has consistently turned a blind eye to India’s actions, choosing instead to target Pakistan under the guise of non-proliferation.
This selective approach underscores the deeply entrenched bias in U.S. foreign policy. By ignoring India’s development of systems such as the Agni-V missile, which is capable of striking deep into Chinese and Pakistani territory, Washington tacitly endorses destabilizing behavior. On the other hand, Pakistan, which has adhered to its policy of credible minimum deterrence and refrains from indulging in an arms race, finds itself unfairly vilified.
The asymmetries in U.S. policy are glaring. While Pakistan is sanctioned for its defensive measures, India receives sophisticated military technology and strategic partnerships. The 2020 Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) between India and the U.S., for example, has bolstered India’s precision-strike capabilities, leaving Pakistan with little choice but to enhance its deterrence measures. While Washington lectures Pakistan on restraint, it continues to provide India with advanced military technology and strategic partnerships. This selective application of non-proliferation norms not only undermines the credibility of U.S. policies but also exposes their inherently political nature.
The imposition of sanctions reflects a broader trend in U.S. policy: the reliance on punitive measures to compel compliance. However, history has shown that such tactics rarely achieve their intended outcomes. Pakistan’s missile program, like its nuclear program before it, is a product of necessity, driven by the imperative to counter existential threats. No amount of external pressure will alter this reality. If anything, sanctions like these serve to harden Pakistan’s resolve to maintain and advance its strategic capabilities.
Moreover, these sanctions ignore the indigenous and self-sustained nature of Pakistan’s missile development program. The NDC, for instance, is a testament to Pakistan’s ability to innovate under constraints. Over the years, the NDC has played a pivotal role in reducing Pakistan’s reliance on external sources by developing advanced missile systems domestically.
These sanctions also fail to address the root causes of strategic competition in South Asia. The region’s security dynamics are shaped by a complex interplay of factors, including unresolved territorial disputes, historical animosities, and external interventions. By focusing narrowly on Pakistan’s missile program, the U.S. overlooks the broader challenges that fuel the arms race in the region. This myopic approach does nothing to promote stability; instead, it entrenches mistrust and deepens divisions.
Furthermore, the sanctions fail to recognize Pakistan’s consistent calls for arms control and strategic stability in the region. Islamabad has repeatedly proposed measures such as a South Asian missile restraint regime, which India has rejected. By ignoring these initiatives, the U.S. signals that it is not serious about addressing the root causes of strategic instability in South Asia.
If the U.S. is genuinely committed to promoting stability and non-proliferation in South Asia, it must adopt a more balanced and nuanced approach. This requires acknowledging the legitimate security concerns of all regional players and addressing the underlying causes of strategic competition. Instead of imposing sanctions, Washington should engage in dialogue with Pakistan to build trust and explore cooperative solutions. A constructive engagement strategy could include confidence-building measures, arms control agreements, and initiatives to promote regional stability. By working with Pakistan rather than against it, the U.S. can contribute to a more secure and stable South Asia.
