The March 18, 2026 testimony of Tulsi Gabbard before the Senate Intelligence Committee heightened tensions by claiming the United States could face a potential threat from Pakistani nuclear missiles, placing Pakistan alongside Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran as states developing systems capable of reaching the US and warning its program might include ICBMs, contributing to a projected global arsenal exceeding 16,000 missiles by 2035.

This view is challenged as a misinterpretation that ignores geography, missile range realities, and Pakistan’s defensive posture, arguing instead that India’s nuclear ambitions are the more immediate concern; a strike from South Asia to the US would require 10,000–13,000 km range, while Pakistan’s longest-range Shaheen-III reaches about 2,750 km and is designed to cover India, with other systems like Shaheen-II, Ghauri, Shaheen-I, Abdali, Babur, and Ra’ad having even shorter regional ranges, whereas India’s Agni-V approaches intercontinental range and the under-development Agni-VI is estimated at 6,000–12,000 km with MIRV capability, indicating a program designed to extend beyond the region.

Pakistan’s strategic doctrine reinforces this regional focus, with figures like Jalil Abbas Jilani rejecting claims that it can target the US and emphasizing its India-centric deterrence policy, a stance echoed by the Foreign Office and supported by analysts such as Tughral Yamin and Rabia Akhtar, who argue that US assessments rely on worst-case speculation and overlook India’s longer-range capabilities; Pakistan’s nuclear forces are structured to deter India due to geographic vulnerability and would gain nothing from targeting the US.

In contrast, India’s expanding arsenal, including Agni-V, Agni-VI, and submarine-launched systems like the K-5 deployed on Arihant-class submarines, is portrayed as enabling global reach and second-strike capability, raising broader security concerns and suggesting a shift beyond minimum deterrence, while Pakistan’s record of restraint, crisis management, and willingness to de-escalate—praised by Donald Trump in relation to the May 2025 conflict—contrasts with India’s more assertive posture and comparatively strained relations with the United States.

The current period has, in fact, witnessed a renaissance in Pakistan-US relations, a partnership built on mutual respect and strategic alignment that renders Gabbard’s alarmist rhetoric not only factually incorrect but diplomatically counterproductive. Throughout 2025 and into 2026, Pakistan has successfully re-established itself in Washington as an indispensable and reliable partner through strategic prudence .

This new phase of cooperation encompasses multiple dimensions: counterterrorism cooperation has been restored, a major trade agreement reducing tariffs between the two nations was finalized in July 2025, and the United States has committed to jointly developing Pakistan’s oil reserves . In a significant military-to-military development, Pakistan received US approval for the upgrade of its F-16 aircraft, a $686 million defense package that ensures the modernization of critical systems and enhances electronic warfare capabilities, signaling a deep trust in Pakistan’s role as a security partner .

The diplomatic synchronization between Washington and Islamabad has reached unprecedented levels, with Field Marshal Asim Munir making multiple visits to the United States, including a private lunch with President Trump at the White House—an honor rarely extended to a foreign military chief who is not also a head of state . This rapprochement is built on shared interests, particularly regional stability, and stands as a testament to the fact that the current US administration recognizes the value of Pakistan’s role as a mediator and a force for stability.

Pakistan’s strategic importance has only grown, as evidenced by its role in brokering behind-the-scenes diplomacy between the US and Iran, leveraging its unique geographical and political position to reduce tensions in the Middle East . In this context, the allegations made by Tulsi Gabbard appear not only divorced from strategic reality but dangerously misaligned with the broader objectives of the US administration she serves, which has been actively cultivating the very partnership her words threaten to undermine.

The narrative put forward by Tulsi Gabbard regarding a Pakistani missile threat to the United States is a construct built on a foundation of flawed assumptions, ignored data, and a willful disregard for the established strategic doctrines of the nations involved. The facts are irrefutable: Pakistan’s missile systems, with a maximum range of 2,750 kilometers, are defensive in nature and calibrated solely to deter its existential adversary, India.

Meanwhile, India is actively developing and deploying a fleet of intercontinental ballistic missiles like the Agni-VI, with ranges extending up to 12,000 kilometers, alongside a sophisticated naval nuclear triad designed for global power projection. The argument that Pakistan’s short-range arsenal poses a threat to the US mainland defies the basic laws of physics and geography, while the suggestion that India’s rapidly expanding ICBM program is somehow a regional or benign development is a dangerous delusion.

Pakistan’s history is one of restraint; it has never initiated a conflict and has repeatedly demonstrated its maturity in de-escalating crises—a fact acknowledged and appreciated by President Trump and the international community. The current state of US-Pakistan relations is remarkably robust, characterized by deepening economic ties, renewed security cooperation, and mutual respect at the highest levels of leadership.

Characters like Tulsi Gabbard, who seek to disrupt this trajectory with misleading assumptions, do so at the peril of regional and global stability. It is incumbent upon those in positions of intelligence and power to look beyond the biases and the flawed assessments of the past and recognize the truth: the real threat to peace in South Asia, and potentially beyond, emanates not from Pakistan’s defensive deterrence but from India’s unchecked nuclear ambitions and aggressive weaponization. The United States would be wise to align its threat assessments with reality, focusing on the nation in the region that is actively building the capabilities to strike the American homeland, rather than the one that has consistently proven itself a partner for peace.