U.S. Sanctions on Pakistan’s Missile Program : Impacts and Geopolitics

On December 18, the United States (U.S.) imposed sanctions on four Pakistani entities, for their alleged involvement in advancing Pakistan’s long-range missile program. The move, justified under Executive Order 13382, reflects Washington’s ongoing concerns about weapons proliferation but raises significant questions about fairness, effectiveness, and regional stability. “In light of the continuing proliferation threat of Pakistan’s long-range missile development, the United States is designating four entities for sanctions pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13382, which targets proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery,” read a statement issued by the State Department. Companies listed in the recent statement include Islamabad-based National Development Complex (NDC) and three Karachi-based companies: Affiliates International, Akhtar and Sons Private Limited, and Rockside Enterprise. These entities were accused of supplying equipment and missiles to Pakistan’s ballistic missile program, including its long missile program.

Also See: Youm-e-Takbeer: More Than Just a Scientific Feat!

Historical Context of U.S. Concerns Over Pakistan’s Missiles

U.S. concerns about Pakistan’s missile program and potential collaboration with China date back to the early 1990s.

Pakistan’s long-range missile capabilities have consistently been a point of focus for the U.S., with Islamabad resisting both pressure and attempts by Washington to limit the range of its missiles.

The recent sanctions are part of the U.S.’s ongoing efforts to curtail Pakistan’s missile program. In October 2024, the U.S. added 26 companies—mainly from Pakistan, China, and the United Arab Emirate (UAE)—to its blacklist for violating export controls, engaging in “weapons programs of concern,” or evading sanctions on Russia and Iran, according to the Commerce Department. Earlier, in April 2024, the U.S. sanctioned four companies from Belarus and China for supplying missile-related items to Pakistan.

Selective Enforcement in Non-Proliferation: U.S. Double Standards

The U.S. approach to non-proliferation has been criticized for its selective enforcement, which undermines the credibility of global non-proliferation regimes. While Pakistan faces repeated sanctions and scrutiny, India, despite its significant nuclear arms buildup and membership in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), largely escapes similar challenges. This disparity not only strengthens one regional power at the expense of another but also raises doubts about the sincerity of U.S. commitments to regional peace and security. With seven rounds of sanctions imposed over the past four years, the Biden administration has taken an especially aggressive stance against entities believed to be supporting Pakistan’s missile program.

Pakistan’s Response to U.S. Sanctions

Hours after the U.S. imposed sanctions, Pakistan sharply condemned the decision, calling it “unfortunate and biased.”

A statement issued by the Foreign Office read, “Pakistan considers the US decision to impose sanctions on NDC and three commercial entities as unfortunate and biased. Pakistan’s strategic capabilities are meant to defend its sovereignty and preserve peace and stability in South Asia, “ The statement further asserted that these sanctions undermine the goal of regional peace and security, as they exacerbate military asymmetries and have dangerous implications for strategic stability both in the region and globally.

“Pakistan’s strategic program is a sacred trust bestowed by 240 million people upon its leadership. The sanctity of this trust, held in the highest esteem across the entire political spectrum, cannot be compromised,” the statement emphasized. Additionally, Pakistan expressed regret over the imposition of sanctions on private commercial entities, noting that similar listings in the past were based on suspicion rather than evidence. It also pointed out that while the U.S. claims strict adherence to non-proliferation norms, it has waived licensing requirements for advanced military technology to other countries in the past.

Pakistan’s ballistic missile program is a cornerstone of its defense strategy, designed to deter aggression and maintain strategic balance in South Asia. This posture arises from a regional environment shaped by historical conflicts, an ongoing arms race with India, and the need to safeguard sovereignty. Islamabad’s insistence that its missile capabilities are defensive and aligned with international norms highlights a critical perspective often overlooked by U.S. policymakers.

Geopolitical Undercurrents: U.S.-China Rivalry and Pakistan’s Role

The U.S. sanctions, while framed around proliferation concerns, appear to also serve as a tactic in the broader U.S.-China rivalry.

Pakistan’s missile program has historical ties to China, and targeting entities linked to it may signal to Beijing and limit their technical cooperation. However, this approach risks pushing Pakistan closer to China, further complicating U.S.-Pakistan relations. Tughral Yamin, a former military official and senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies Islamabad (IPS), commented on the September 2024 sanctions, suggesting that they may be more of a tactic by the U.S. to exert pressure on China.

Effectiveness of U.S. Sanctions on Pakistan’s Missile Program

Tughral Yamin expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the U.S. sanctions. “Pakistan’s missile programme has developed to a point where such repeated sanctions will not hamper our progress. We are far beyond that,” he told Al Jazeera. Earlier in October 2024, Salman Javed, Director South Asia Times (SAT) echoed this sentiment in one of his comments for the Voice of America, stating, “It will not make a difference to Pakistan,” while acknowledging the country’s reliance on the U.S. for other defense technologies. He added, “I believe Pakistan’s missile program is in an advanced stage, and U.S. restrictions will have no impact on it.”

However, the sanctions could still pose challenges. Pakistan’s missile program may face difficulties in sourcing regular maintenance and spare parts, particularly from China. The deep integration of Chinese firms into the global financial system and the potential threat of U.S. sanctions could deter them from supplying critical components, potentially slowing Pakistan’s missile development over time.

Strategic Imbalance and Regional Defense Implications

The U.S. sanctions on Pakistan’s missile program create a significant strategic imbalance in South Asia by undermining Pakistan’s India-centric missile program. Disruptions in the development and maintenance of Pakistan’s missile stockpile, particularly due to spare parts shortages, could weaken its defense posture. In contrast, India remains unaffected by such restrictions, allowing it to sustain and enhance its missile capabilities. This imbalance not only strengthens India’s security against Pakistan but also enables New Delhi to redirect its focus toward defense preparations against China. This outcome aligns with Washington’s broader geopolitical objectives, as it seeks to bolster India as a counterweight to China in the Indo-Pacific region.

Pakistan-China Defense Cooperation Amid Sanctions

The sanctions also cast a shadow over Pakistan’s broader defense collaboration with China. Pakistan’s collaboration with China extends beyond missile systems to include joint fighter aircraft production and the purchase of eight submarines. The fear of U.S. sanctions targeting Chinese companies involved in these projects could disrupt ongoing and future ventures, significantly impacting Pakistan’s defense capabilities. This demonstrates how the sanctions extend beyond the missile program, indirectly weakening Pakistan’s overall defense posture by threatening its critical defense projects with China.

Ironically, the sanctions may push Pakistan closer to China, undermining U.S. strategic interests.

As Washington strengthens its ties with India and imposes restrictions on Pakistan’s defense procurements, Islamabad is likely to deepen its alignment with Beijing to safeguard its security interests. Pakistan is already China’s largest purchaser of major arms, receiving 58% of all Chinese arms exports between 2018 and 2023, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). This extensive collaboration includes co-producing the JF-17 Thunder aircraft and the Al-Khalid main battle tank. Additionally, Pakistan has acquired 25 J-10C aircraft, Wing Loong II armed drones, and ordered eight Hangor-class attack submarines. Its Haider battle tank is a variant of China’s VT-4.

Pakistan’s Missile Programme and MTCR Compliance

Pakistan has maintained a robust missile programme for decades and developed nuclear warheads. It is not a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), an informal agreement among 35 states aimed at limiting the proliferation of missiles and related technologies globally.

The MTCR seeks to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by controlling the export of goods and technologies that could contribute to delivery systems for such weapons. Although Pakistan is not a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), it adheres to its guidelines.

In addition, Pakistan has not pursued intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which can travel over 5,000km, and instead focuses on deterrence against India, an MTCR member since 2015. Pakistan’s longest-range missile, the medium-range Shaheen-III, can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads up to 2,750km (1,708 miles).

“[Pakistan’s] missiles, whether conventional or nuclear-tipped, serve as a deterrent against India. This policy has been transparent and consistent, and the deterrence still holds,” Tughral Yamin says.

Strategic Missteps: The Fallout of U.S. Sanctions on Pakistan’s Missile Program

Looking ahead, Pakistan is likely to modernize its missile capabilities, focusing on improving the accuracy, reliability, and versatility of its existing systems. As regional tensions persist and India bolsters its defense infrastructure, Pakistan may prioritize the development of more advanced conventional and nuclear missile systems to maintain strategic parity. Additionally, shifting global dynamics and evolving security concerns could influence Pakistan’s stance on missile technology and its future engagement with international non-proliferation frameworks. The U.S., therefore, must adopt a balanced and rational approach to imposing sanctions, ensuring consistency and fairness in its policies.

As the world transitions toward a bi-multipolar order, where major powers like the U.S. and China compete for influence, U.S. sanctions on Pakistan risk driving Islamabad further into Beijing’s strategic orbit. By constraining Pakistan’s defense options, these measures inadvertently deepen its reliance on China for military and economic support. This dynamic could not only strain U.S.-Pakistan relations but also complicate Washington’s broader strategic goals in South Asia and the Asia-Pacific.

From a broader perspective, imposing sanctions on Pakistan’s missile program appears to be a miscalculated move and a strategic misstep. Such actions exacerbate strategic imbalances in South Asia, leaving Pakistan at a disadvantage while its rival, India, faces no similar restrictions. India’s missile program has flourished with fewer obstacles, benefiting from partnerships such as the BrahMos collaboration with Russia and dual-use technological advances enabled by agreements like the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Deal of 2008. These developments underscore a disparity in how non-proliferation norms are enforced, creating a perception of bias that undermines the credibility of U.S. policies.

Rather than encouraging dialogue or fostering regional stability, these sanctions risk alienating Pakistan—a key player in a volatile region—while enabling India to advance its strategic capabilities unchecked. This selective enforcement exacerbates mistrust and erodes meaningful engagement in the region.

For the U.S., a balanced and consistent approach is essential—not only to maintain its influence but also to support sustainable peace and stability in South Asia. Otherwise, these sanctions may achieve little beyond widening geopolitical divides and reinforcing strategic rivalries.

SAT Editorial Desk

Your go-to editorial hub for policy perspectives and informed analysis on pressing regional and global issues.

South Asia Times

U.S. Sanctions on Pakistan’s Missile Program : Impacts and Geopolitics