Reframing Strategic Stability in a Volatile Regional Context

Qazi Hussain Asghar

In a world increasingly destabilized by aggressive posturing, ideological extremism, and hegemonic ambitions, Pakistan continues to be mischaracterized by narratives driven not by facts but by fear. The latest smear in a growing series of disinformation campaigns attempts to label Pakistan’s strategic program as a global threat, citing fictitious claims such as the development of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of striking the US. These allegations are not just baseless; they are deliberately crafted to provoke suspicion, isolate Pakistan diplomatically, and create a false equivalence between responsible deterrence and offensive militarism.

Pakistan’s strategic posture is rooted in deterrence, not domination.

Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programs are purely India-centric and deterrence-based. This orientation stems from a bitter historical context and ongoing regional hostility, especially due to India’s consistent refusal to engage in dialogue on pressing bilateral issues such as Kashmir and water rights. Unlike states that project force to dominate others, Pakistan’s strategic doctrine is defensive and designed solely to preserve sovereignty and regional stability.

Pakistan’s security architecture is governed by a robust command and control structure. Her National Command Authority ensures that all strategic decisions are centralized, transparent, and in line with international norms. Pakistan has also taken active measures to align its nuclear safety regime with global best practices, including collaboration with international institutions like the IAEA. The country maintains a clear “No First Use” ambiguity, discouraging escalation without triggering unwarranted strategic speculation.

Pakistan’s very foundation was laid through a political movement that remained overwhelmingly non-violent, even under colonial repression. The narrative that frames Pakistan as a belligerent state conveniently forgets this truth. Unlike many nations that were born through violent upheaval, Pakistan emerged through constitutional and legal struggle, a fact that is often overshadowed by contemporary security debates.

Pakistan’s strategic posture reflects this history: restrained, measured, and focused on deterrence. Pakistan has never used force proactively against any of its neighbors or beyond. In contrast, it has continuously offered frameworks for dialogue and regional stability, such as the long-standing proposal for a Strategic Restraint Regime, which India has repeatedly rejected.

Ironically, those who question Pakistan’s strategic intentions turn a blind eye to India’s exponential military expansion and ideological drift. India today, under the sway of an extremist Hindutva ideology, has increasingly adopted a confrontational posture not just toward Pakistan, but toward virtually all its neighbors, including China, Nepal, Bangladesh, and even Sri Lanka.

False claims about ICBMs serve geopolitical agendas, not truth.

India’s missile capabilities have quietly evolved to include ICBMs with ranges exceeding 5,000 kilometers, including the Agni-V. This development, conspicuously ignored by the Western media, signifies ambitions beyond regional deterrence. Coupled with recent reports of orchestrated extrajudicial killings of dissidents abroad, the question must be asked: Who is truly exporting instability?

While India’s media and strategic community freely engage in jingoistic rhetoric, stoking
fears of confrontation, Pakistan remains committed to peaceful coexistence. From
welcoming Indian pilgrims to religious sites like Kartarpur to hosting cultural exchanges, the
Pakistani people have repeatedly shown they do not bear hostility toward ordinary Indians.
The adversarial posture is not ideological; it is a reaction to India’s hegemonic coercion and
refusal to resolve disputes peacefully.

The insinuation that Pakistan is developing an ICBM capable of targeting the US lacks any credible sourcing and defies logic. What strategic value would such a weapon serve in Pakistan’s regional security matrix, which is entirely focused on countering an existential threat posed by its immediate neighbor? These fabricated stories only serve to shift focus from India’s unbridled strategic buildup.

The world must resist the urge to fall for propagandist narratives, especially when they originate from countries with vested interests in isolating Pakistan or boosting India’s global profile. False equivalency between Pakistan’s restrained deterrence and India’s offensive posturing only deepens mistrust and undermines efforts for regional peace.

Pakistan remains open to meaningful dialogue and mutual arms restraint. It has consistently shown readiness to engage in confidence-building measures, non-aggression pacts, and regional disarmament talks. It is time the international community recognized this track record, rather than enabling a narrative driven by strategic disinformation.

Peace requires acknowledging regional asymmetries and ending narrative manipulation.

The true threat to South Asian stability is not Pakistan’s defensive capabilities, but unchecked militarism empowered by ideological extremism and regional domination. If peace is the global goal, the discourse must shift from suspicion to symmetry, from misrepresentation to meaningful engagement.

Pakistan does not aspire to be a global military actor. Its strategic capabilities serve a singular, sobering purpose: to ensure survival in a region fraught with aggression. The time has come to end the demonization and start a more honest conversation about who seeks peace and who truly threatens it.

The author is a PhD scholar.