A recent US intelligence report has sent ripples through the global strategic community, revealing that Pakistan may be secretly developing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States. If verified, this development could drastically change Washington’s approach to Islamabad and push the US to designate Pakistan as a nuclear adversary — placing it in the same category as China, Russia, and North Korea.

The report, attributed to top US intelligence officials and published in the reputed journal Foreign Affairs, claims that Pakistan is covertly working on a long-range missile system under the radar. According to sources, this missile system mirrors the specifications of ICBMs that can travel over 5,500 km and carry both nuclear and conventional warheads — a clear strategic threat to the US mainland.

Currently, Pakistan does not possess any ICBMs officially. Its most far-reaching missile tested to date is the Shaheen-III, with a range of about 2,700 km — enough to strike several Indian cities. However, the alleged secret ICBM project changes the narrative from regional to intercontinental threats.

The intelligence report indicates that Pakistan is receiving assistance from China in its pursuit of upgrading its nuclear arsenal. This initiative, analysts believe, is a direct reaction to India’s recent military operations, including Operation Sindoor, which left Pakistan reeling. As a result, Pakistan now seeks to strengthen its deterrence and bargaining power with a potential missile that could strike far beyond South Asia.

Interestingly, this development comes in the backdrop of Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir’s recent visit to the United States, where he reportedly held private meetings, including with former President Donald Trump. While no detailed account of the discussions has surfaced, the very nature of the interaction — bypassing Pakistan’s civilian leadership — suggests Washington acknowledges that true power in Pakistan resides with its military.

Despite this, the US remains deeply wary. Intelligence assessments describe Pakistan as an "untrusted state" — a nation whose nuclear intentions cannot be fully predicted or controlled. If Islamabad does manage to complete and deploy an ICBM, American officials believe there will be no choice but to classify Pakistan as a nuclear threat.

This would carry far-reaching implications. It would potentially trigger sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and a strategic realignment of the US-Pakistan relationship. It would also nullify any past cooperation or goodwill shared during the War on Terror or humanitarian engagements.

In fact, the US has already begun to act. In recent months, Washington imposed sanctions on Pakistan's National Development Complex and three affiliated entities, freezing their US assets and banning American companies from conducting business with them. These steps were taken after intelligence agencies discovered Pakistan sourcing sensitive technologies for missile development — a move that directly violates non-proliferation norms.

Notably, Pakistan is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which seeks to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. Despite having around 170 nuclear warheads, Islamabad has often justified its arsenal as necessary to counter India. Until now, Pakistan’s missile focus had remained on short and medium-range systems targeting Indian cities. However, the new intelligence shifts the paradigm — from South Asia to global.

Analysts believe this covert ICBM development serves two goals: first, to deter any US-led attempt to neutralize Pakistan’s nuclear assets; and second, to prevent American involvement in a future India-Pakistan escalation, especially if the US shows favor toward New Delhi.

It’s widely believed that China is facilitating Pakistan's ICBM ambitions. Without Beijing’s backing — financially and technologically — Pakistan’s defense sector would be crippled. China has consistently acted as Pakistan’s "all-weather ally", providing missiles, nuclear technology, and financial aid — especially as Pakistan’s economy spirals and its foreign reserves dry up.

Ironically, while Pakistan claims to be developing these capabilities for national defense, many in Washington see them as a means of nuclear blackmail and geopolitical leverage. This is not the first time Pakistan has drawn American ire. Its past double-dealings on counter-terrorism, sheltering of extremists, and alliance with China have already strained ties.

Moreover, tensions between Islamabad and New Delhi have remained high, with recent incidents including Pakistan’s launch of the Fateh-2 hypersonic missile — a launch that was successfully intercepted and neutralized by India’s air defense systems. Pakistan’s conventional and nuclear posturing continues to provoke responses from India, raising the threat of conflict in the region.

Given this complex backdrop, the US is now at a crossroads. Should Pakistan proceed with its alleged ICBM development, it risks being formally branded a nuclear enemy — a label that will come with economic penalties and geopolitical fallout.

President Trump’s interactions with Pakistani officials, particularly the military leadership, are being scrutinized. While Trump has previously shown a transactional approach to foreign relations — treating allies and adversaries alike based on momentary strategic value — it remains uncertain whether he would tolerate Pakistan’s pursuit of missiles that threaten the American homeland.

In conclusion, this intelligence revelation signals the possibility of an impending geopolitical storm. Pakistan's covert missile ambitions, backed by China and possibly driven by insecurity post-Indian operations, may soon draw the ire of Washington in unprecedented ways. Whether this will lead to direct American action or a diplomatic standoff remains to be seen — but one thing is certain: the world is watching.

Disclaimer:
This blog post is based on public domain intelligence reports, media sources, and geopolitical analysis. All interpretations are for informational and analytical purposes only and do not represent any government or official position.