Decoding the Impact of U.S. Sanctions on Pakistan

Pakistan-US relations have been mired by ups and downs. From being a front ally of the US on Global War on Terror (GWOT) to facing sanctions or restrictions on its missile program, Pakistan has nevigated its diplomatic relations with flip-flop. The United States’ recent imposition of sanctions on four entities linked to Pakistan’s ballistic missile program under Executive Order (E.O.) 13382 has sparked significant debate about its implications for regional stability and global non-proliferation efforts. While the U.S. has justified these measures as part of its commitment to preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the move has been met with strong opposition from Pakistan, which views it as an affront to its sovereignty and strategic imperatives. 

The sanctions, and the broader issues they touch upon, underscore the delicate balance of power in South Asia and the complex interplay of international norms, national security, and geopolitical interests. It has been moving Pakistan to reorient its position vis-a-vis global norms and national interest. Pakistan has consistently maintained that its ballistic missile program is a sovereign right, essential for its national defense and regional stability. Pakistan considers that its geographical position and historical tensions with neighboring India necessitate a robust defense posture. Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine views its missile program as a deterrent against aggression, ensuring a balance of power in a region characterized by asymmetrical military capabilities.

In its response to the sanctions, Pakistan has reiterated its adherence to international norms and non-proliferation principles. On 18 December 2024, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) termed “the US decision to impose sanctions on NDC and three commercial entities as unfortunate and biased”. Islamabad asserts that its missile program is not intended for proliferation and operates under stringent controls to prevent any misuse. By framing its missile development as a defensive measure rather than an offensive threat, Pakistan seeks to counter the narrative that its actions undermine regional security. Instead, Islamabad argues that its strategic capabilities contribute to regional peace by deterring potential conflicts.

The entities targeted by the U.S. sanctions include Affiliates International, Akhtar and Sons Private Limited and Rockside Enterprise, all located in Karachi. These entities are accused of facilitating Pakistan’s missile program, but Islamabad contends that these organizations operate within legal and transparent frameworks. This is, however, not the first time Pakistani firms are facing restrictions. The U.S. sanctions against Pakistan have a long history starting from 1998 when Pakistan tested its nuclear weapons. In the recent past, the U.S. sanctioned Pakistani, Chinese and Emirati firms for allegedly violating export controls.  

Pakistan thinks that the U.S. sanctions can have significant implications for South Asia’s strategic landscape. Pakistan views these measures as biased and counterproductive, particularly given the absence of similar actions against India, which has been expanding its nuclear arsenal and missile capabilities. This perceived imbalance exacerbates regional tensions and undermines strategic stability. Defense experts in Pakistan have been insisting that by targeting Pakistan’s missile program, the U.S. risks accentuating military asymmetries in South Asia, potentially emboldening India’s aggressive posturing. Such dynamics could escalate the arms race in the region, making it harder to achieve long-term peace and stability.

Despite Pakistan’s stance, it is early to measure what tangible impact the U.S. sanctions will create in Pakistan’s missile program. The history of Pakistan’s missile program suggests it has been growing and expanding its outreach despite the international concerns. The data by the Federation of American Scientists suggests that Pakistan has 170 nuclear warheads as compared to India’s 172. In the past 10 years, Pakistan has achieved the nuclear tirade capability with land, air and sea launch capabilities. Furthermore, Pakistan’s nuclear and missile program has been going through an indigenization process and rarely needs American support. This fact has further been consolidated by Pakistan’s growing relations with China that has helped Pakistan to maintain regional balance of power. 

Despite nuclear self-sufficiency, Pakistan has a global image problem. Pakistan thinks that the U.S. sanctions are politically motivated. By selectively targeting Pakistan while ignoring India’s actions, the U.S. sends a message that regional strategic stability is not its primary goal. This approach not only compromises the effectiveness of non-proliferation efforts but also risks fueling mistrust and resentment among nations subject to unequal treatment. For Pakistan, the sanctions are a stark reminder of the challenges it faces in navigating a global system that often prioritizes political alliances over equitable enforcement of international norms.

In light of these developments, Pakistan has called for a more balanced and constructive approach to addressing concerns about its missile program. Islamabad has emphasized its commitment to dialogue and cooperation, urging the international community to recognize its legitimate security needs. By engaging with Pakistan on an equal footing and addressing its concerns, the U.S. and other stakeholders can help foster a more stable and secure South Asia. At the same time, Pakistan must continue to strengthen its internal controls and transparency measures to demonstrate its commitment to non-proliferation.