Navigating Tensions: Pakistan's Strategic Dilemma Amid U.S. Sanctions and Growing Ties with China

The nature of the relationship between the United States and Pakistan has been "transactional," characterized by its fluctuations. This dynamic is tied to the reality that states operate based on their interests, and the interests of Pakistan and the United States align at times and diverge at others, depending on circumstances. There is no parity between the two; the United States is a global superpower, a hub of economic and military strength, while Pakistan is a relatively smaller country. However, both nations have consistently cooperated whenever their interests converged.

From its very inception, Pakistan emerged as a Western allied state, signing the Baghdad Pact, joining SEATO, and becoming part of the anti-Soviet alliance. Despite this alignment, after 1960, particularly following the 1965 war, the United States began imposing sanctions on Pakistan. This pattern continued even after 1971. However, when the Afghan war began and the United States needed Pakistan during the Cold War, it once again expressed a renewed affection for Pakistan.
The Wilson war can be observed and studied through the books written about it. As soon as the Afghan war concludes, the Pressler Amendment is imposed on Pakistan to prevent it from advancing its nuclear weapons or nuclear program. Then, once again, when the "War on Terror" begins, the dynamics shift. Pakistan becomes essential once more when, under the leadership of George W. Bush, the United States launches invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000s. During this period, Pakistan once again becomes America's "favorite nation."

The latest development is that Pakistan is facing pressure from the United States, and this time, the focus is on Pakistan's long-range ballistic missile program. On December 18, the United States issued a press release that was startling in its content. The statement came from the U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor, Jon Finer, who presented the American stance on the matter.
It was stated that Pakistan's long-range ballistic missiles pose a threat not only to South Asia but also to the United States. In other words, Pakistan's missile program is seen as a challenge not only to the region but also to the U.S. itself, with the potential to enable Pakistan to launch attacks on the United States.

It has also been claimed that Pakistan has made advancements in acquiring state-of-the-art missile technology, including long-range ballistic missile systems and equipment that could enhance its testing capabilities. The United States stated that the equipment being procured can be used to manufacture large rocket motors, which are specifically utilized for developing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) or long-range missiles. Regarding Shaheen-III, it was suggested—and implied by the U.S.—that motors ranging from 1.4 meters to 1.7 meters in diameter are being used. The U.S. believes there is only one purpose for this: enhancing long-range capabilities.
Such equipment is also used by many countries for their space programs and for improving their existing technology. Here, attention must be drawn to an important point, which is quite straightforward: large-diameter solid rocket motors can serve as the foundation for both space programs and ICBMs. Countries like China, France, the Soviet Union/Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States developed space launch vehicles (SLVs) from ICBM rocket motors. On the other hand, India did the reverse—it adapted an SLV into a ballistic missile.
In the 1980s, India’s SLV-3 was transformed into the Agni medium-range ballistic missile. India typically labels its nuclear and missile programs as civilian until their military role becomes undeniable. For instance, India termed its 1974 nuclear test “Smiling Buddha” as a peaceful nuclear explosion, even though it was working on weaponizing its nuclear capability. Similarly, the Agni missile was called a “technology demonstrator,” although it was effectively converting its SLV for military purposes. Today, Agni-V claims a range exceeding 5,000 kilometers and is designed to target locations within China—something that appears entirely acceptable to the United States.
However, when it comes to Pakistan, the U.S. seems fully convinced that its missile development is aimed solely at achieving long-range capabilities.

The United States has also stated that the number of nuclear-armed countries with missile capabilities that can reach the U.S. is very limited, and these countries are generally adversarial to the U.S., including Russia, North Korea, and China.
According to the U.S., the states possessing nuclear missile technology capable of reaching its territory are few, and most of them exhibit hostile attitudes. This list includes North Korea, Russia, and China, and it appears that Pakistan also aspires to be part of this group.
Additionally, four entities have been subjected to sanctions as part of these measures. The first is the National Development Complex, a state-run organization operating under the Pakistani government and based in Islamabad. This marks the first time in history that a state entity has faced sanctions from the United States.
The second company is Akhtar & Sons Private Limited, the third is Affiliates International, and the fourth is Rockside Enterprise. All three companies are based in Karachi and supply equipment critical to Pakistan’s missile program, enhancing its defensive capabilities. It is for this reason that these companies have been targeted by sanctions.
Moreover, it was stated that these companies' business relations or commercial activities in the U.S. have been restricted, and their assets have been frozen.

In 2023, the United States also imposed sanctions on three Chinese companies accused of supplying equipment to Pakistan to advance its missile program. These companies included General Technology Limited, as well as Beijing Luo Technology Limited and Xu Youte Composite Company. All three were accused of aiding Pakistan’s missile program.
Similarly, the U.S. imposed sanctions on a Belarusian company named Minsk Wheel Tractor Plant alongside the three Chinese firms. In September, another wave of sanctions was announced by the U.S., targeting four Chinese companies and one Pakistani company named Innovative Equipment.

Islamabad rejected the claim that it is developing long-range ballistic missiles. It was previously reported that before the public statements from the United States, a backchannel discussion had taken place. Many diplomatic sources confirm that Pakistan strongly denied the allegation, asserting that it was doing nothing of the sort. Despite this, the U.S. brought these accusations to light. Pakistan's Foreign Office stated that these allegations are baseless.
The Foreign Office described the sanctions as unilateral and dismissed them, calling them reflective of double standards and discriminatory policies. It stated that such measures not only undermine the credibility of efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons but also harm regional and international peace and security. Pakistan responded that U.S. actions aimed at preventing nuclear proliferation are, in fact, based on double standards and are specifically targeting Pakistan. Additionally, these U.S. actions are an attempt to destabilize peace in the region and globally, further escalating tensions.
This tension has also been discussed in diplomatic circles. Ambassador Zamir Akram stated that there is no dispute between Pakistan and the U.S., nor is Pakistan posing any threat to the United States. He emphasized that Pakistan's nuclear program is solely for defense against India. Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi echoed this sentiment, saying Pakistan’s missile capabilities are entirely focused on India.
Many experts have dismissed the allegation that Pakistan is developing technology aimed at targeting the U.S., calling the claim contrary to reality.

This wave of sanctions is essentially part of the Biden administration’s measures, implemented as its tenure nears its end. It is anticipated that there will also be pressure on Donald Trump not only to avoid reversing these sanctions but to intensify them further.

There is no parity between Pakistan and the United States, either economically or militarily. The historical relationship between the two countries also indicates that there has never been outright hostility between them. In fact, Pakistan is the country that provided its services to support the U.S. in its war against Russia.
An example of this is the incident involving the U-2 aircraft that took off from Peshawar’s Badaber Airbase. This aircraft was on a reconnaissance mission to capture images of Russia but was intercepted by Russian forces. The pilot, Gary Powers, was captured within Russian territory. A film was made about this incident, highlighting the sacrifices Pakistan has made to maintain its relationship with the United States.

During the Afghan war, Pakistan directly antagonized a major power of the time, the Soviet Union, solely for the sake of the United States. Not only that, Pakistan provided its air and land routes, handing over the Shamsi Airbase to the U.S. Pakistan fully immersed itself in the Afghan war. But what were the consequences?
To this day, Pakistan continues to face Talibanization. At that time, the trade of opium and narcotics surged, and such a massive influx of weapons entered the country that the entire region became saturated with arms. As a result, Pakistan alienated all right-wing parties, made them adversaries, and faced widespread discontent among its citizens. Anti-American protests erupted across the country, which had to be suppressed to maintain control, and the government bore the brunt of public anger.

After all this, the United States is now claiming that Pakistan is preparing to attack it. This accusation is completely contrary to Pakistan’s sacrifices and contributions. Consider how dangerous and reckless such a policy is. All experts agree that there is such a vast military imbalance between Pakistan and the United States that even imagining such a scenario is implausible.

The list in which the U.S. has hinted at including Pakistan comprises Russia, North Korea, and China. However, Pakistan does not belong in the same category as these countries. The fundamental reason for this is that Pakistan has always played the role of an ally to Western countries, despite facing significant criticism for doing so. For the past 70 years, Pakistan has pursued a foreign policy aligned with Western interests, often at the cost of compromising its own sovereignty.

Now, this very West is accusing Pakistan of having a dangerous defense program. All of this is happening at a time when Israel is committing atrocities in Palestine. Women, children, and men are being massacred, and unilateral genocide is taking place. The question arises: what should truly be the focus of concern?

The apparent concern of the United States is that Pakistan is attempting to develop long-range missiles, but there are two to three types of opinions within the mainstream media, scholars, and experts regarding the underlying motivations behind this concern.

The first opinion is that in recent days, Pakistan has grown very close to China. Pakistan agreed to hand over the Gwadar Port to China for the Belt and Road Initiative, made agreements to establish the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and began receiving financial aid from China. Various projects were initiated to strengthen the partnership with the Chinese government, including energy projects, infrastructure development, and the development of the deep-sea port of Gwadar.

As Pakistan grows closer to China, the United States has gradually ceased to view Pakistan as an ally. This is a significant change, and various experts have shared their opinions on it. Thus, the first theory is that Pakistan's tilt towards China is distancing the United States from Pakistan.

The second theory is that it could be Israel, because if Pakistan were to acquire long-range ballistic missiles, it could pose a threat to Israel, and Pakistan could gain direct access to the Israeli border. Now, there is a completely reasonable claim regarding this theory, as those who are discussing it need to understand that Pakistan's stance on the Palestinian issue is not harsh. Beyond condemnation or criticism, the Pakistani government has not taken any further action, nor has Pakistan ever directly called out Israel in the way Iran has, stating that it would attack them, destroy them, or wipe them off the map. Pakistan has never shown such a level of hostility. Additionally, whenever Israel faces such threats from any country, it is directly Prime Minister Netanyahu who makes statements; it cannot be the case that they go to the United States and ask them to impose sanctions on Pakistan based on Israel's request. Therefore, this theory does not make sense either.

The third theory is India's theory. The reason for this is that the United States views India as a potential balancing force in the region against China and a possible antidote to China. India is enhancing its partnership with the United States and rolling out the red carpet. Furthermore, the facts show that India has purchased $20 billion worth of goods from the United States in recent years. On one hand, the United States is determined to help India enhance its defense program, and on the other, it is economically strengthening India. A glimpse of this can also be seen in the United States' approach towards India, as India is buying oil from Russia and Iran. However, when any other country buys oil from these two countries, the United States imposes sanctions on them, but it does not do so with India because it views India as a potential partner in the region and a possible balancing force against China. I completely agree with this theory; I openly concur with it. This is because there seems to be no other reasonable explanation for why Matthew Miller would suddenly say that Pakistan is going to attack us.

The development of Shaheen-3 is actually being carried out by Pakistan in response to India’s Agni-5, as the range of the Agni-5 is reported to be 5000 kilometers. Therefore, Pakistan has been taking the necessary steps to find an alternative. According to American think tanks and commentators, the Agni-5 has the capability to potentially neutralize Pakistan's nuclear capability. Pakistan believes that in order to counter India's highly advanced missile program, it is essential to advance its own ballistic missile program. In fact, Pakistan is doing all of this to position itself in a stalemate situation.

In these circumstances, the question arises: What should Pakistan do now? The path it should take is very narrow; it is a fine line. Pakistan will have to improve its foreign policy. This is the time for Pakistan to decide how to balance both of these global powers. Historically, Pakistan has been heavily dependent on the IMF, Western countries, the World Bank, and the United States, but now, with developments focused on China, it must figure out how to navigate relations with both powers. This requires a very realistic, very practical, and very intelligent policy because the challenge Pakistan faces is not a small one. On one side, there is China; on the other, there are American sanctions; on the third, Pakistan faces internal political unrest; and on the fourth, it needs to revive its ailing and weak economy. Managing all of this is not easy. To confront these challenges, Pakistan needs a comprehensive and realistic policy.