THE US National Intelligence Director, Tulsi Gabbard, has recently shared overriding concerns regarding Pakistan’s long range missile program, while formally raised as part of her intelligence briefing, are considered overstated, biased and hypothetically fallacious by global and domestic strategists.

The emboldened truth is that Pakistan’s moderate long-range missile development is explicitly focused on regional deterrence, particularly vis-à-vis India. There is no credible evidence that Pakistan is developing ICBMs capable of reaching the US mainland. Gabbard’s classification of Pakistan as a significant threat reflects broader geopolitical framing rather than concrete strategic risk. The international community views Pakistan’s military posture as defensive, with safeguards in place to prevent escalation. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (FO) and spokesperson, Tahir Andrabi, have categorized these US-chartered claims as “unfounded,” “biased” and “misleading”.

While the US has expressed concerns over Pakistan’s potential development of long-range missile program, the truth upholds that Pakistan’s advanced missile program has not developed any ICBM. Pakistan’s missile advancements are primarily aimed at countering India, which possesses longer-range systems. There is no substantiated proof that Pakistan’s program threatens the US homeland. These concerns may reflect broader geopolitical tensions or strategic posturing rather than actual military capability. The US focus on Pak ICBM development appears overstated and over-generalised given Pakistan’s current strategic priorities and technological constraints.

The report notably grouped Pakistan alongside major powers like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran as nations developing advanced missile systems capable of reaching the United State. The fact remains that unlike the US-aligned threat narratives, Pakistan’s missile development aligns with strategic deterrence needs rather than global aggression. Simply put, the inclusion of Pakistan alongside nuclear powers like China and Russia in annual threat assessments may reflect nothing but a geopolitical bias or overreach. Thus, Islamabad has consistently rejected such claims, noting that its programs are defensive and transparent. The imposition of sanctions based on these perceptions risks straining bilateral relations without addressing real security threats.

Critics also argue that the US assessment “conveniently” overlooks the Indian Defence Research and Development Organisation’s (DRDO) development of the Agni-VI, an ICBM with an estimated range of up to 12,000 kilometres. In contrast, Pakistan’s longest-range system, the Shaheen-III, is reported to have a range of approximately 2,750 km, which is far below the intercontinental threshold. While focusing on Pakistan’s potential capabilities, the assessment is seen as failing to apply the same scrutiny to India’s aggressive missile development, which Pakistan claims extends beyond regional security needs and poses a threat to the neighborhood and beyond.

And yet, several nuclear non-proliferation experts and regional analysts have challenged the report, arguing that Pakistan has no rational reason to target countries outside South Asia and that its program remains firmly India-centric. Critics and analysts suggest the US assessment is exaggerated, highlighting that Pakistan’s longest-range operational missile, the Shaheen-III, has meant for regional deterrence against India, not the US.

Fairly arguing, the Pakistani officials maintain that Pakistan’s missile program is firmly rooted in the doctrine of “credible minimum deterrence” specifically against India, not global power projection. In this context, Pakistan has pointed to India’s development of missiles with ranges exceeding 12,000 km, arguing that US intelligence selectively ignores these destabilizing advancements while targeting Pakistan with sanctions.

Further, some observers believe this indicates that while the executive level (Trump) may pursue diplomatic ties with Pakistan, the intelligence community and defence establishment unjustifiably continue to view Pakistan as a threat, creating conflicting signals from Washington at a time when Pakistan’s diplomatic role amid the Middle East turmoil could be of paramount significance. It is further argued that US security policy towards Pakistan has always been compartmentalized. While the US is diplomatically engaged with Pakistan, simultaneously, it is voicing security concerns regarding missile program.

Even the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) observes that the evolution of Pak missile program is designed to counter the Indian threats, with a focus on enhancing “strategic deterrence”. While rejecting Gabbard’s concerns, the experts profoundly argue that Pakistan’s missile advancements are defensive and monitored under international agreements, emphasizing Islamabad’s compliance with global nuclear norms.

Additionally, the Stockholm-based Independent think tank, SIPRI explicitly disavows endorsing Tulsi Gabbard’s claims about Pakistan’s missile program, emphasizing that Pakistan’s arsenal is strictly defensive. The SIPRI’s position underscores the importance of evidence-based discourse in arms control, cautioning against politicized narratives. It is why the Pakistani authorities consistently reject allegations of offensive intentions and expert analysis counters Gabbard’s assertions with evidence of strategic restraint.

That said, the Centre for International Strategic Studies Islamabad (CISS) has firmly rejected Tulsi Gabbard’s characterization of Pakistan’s missile program as a significant threat, emphasizing that her claims are based on speculative potential rather than verified capabilities. The institute highlighted Pakistan’s responsible nuclear posture and adherence to strategic stability, countering what it views as politically motivated and inaccurate assessments. Consequently such narratives risk undermining regional security dialogue and misrepresent Pakistan’s defensive deterrence doctrine.

In summary, experts and analysts have pushed back against US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s 2026 assessment that Pakistan’s missile program poses a direct threat to the US mainland. Critics argue the claim relies on speculative future capabilities, noting Pakistan’s current missiles are regional, not intercontinental. The fact remains that the US assessment overlooks India’s strategic advancements despite its larger arsenal and broader reach.

The US-adopted selective criteria in South Asia crucially underscores geopolitical prioritization over objective nuclear threat assessment, particularly given India’s non-signatory status to key non-proliferation treaties. The focus on Pakistan may serve broader strategic interests in balancing regional power dynamics rather than adhering to consistent non-proliferation principles. In this context, Islamabad is highly justified in perceiving Gabbard’s politically- motived estimate regarding Pakistan missile program as an attack on Pakistan’s strategic autonomy by redefining its ‘’defensive posture as a global threat’’, potentially impacting South Asian strategic stability.

—The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also a Peace and Conflict Studies expert, is member of the European Consortium of Political Research, including Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law.

© Pakistan Observer