In December 2024, the United States imposed sanctions on Pakistan’s National Development Complex (NDC) and three Karachi-based firms—Affiliates International, Akhtar and Sons Private Limited, and Rockside Enterprise. The U.S. government cited concerns that these entities were involved in procuring and supplying equipment to enhance Pakistan’s ballistic missile capabilities, particularly the Shaheen series of missiles. These sanctions were implemented under Executive Order 13382, which targets entities involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). As a result, the sanctioned firms faced asset freezes and restrictions on conducting business with U.S. entities.
This move marks a significant escalation in U.S.-Pakistan relations, as previous U.S. actions focused more on nuclear concerns rather than conventional missile development. The decision has drawn strong reactions from Pakistan and international observers, who see it as a strategic maneuver rather than a purely security-related measure.
The U.S. government justified the sanctions by expressing concerns that Pakistan’s growing missile program poses a threat beyond South Asia. Deputy National Security Adviser Jon Finer labeled Pakistan’s missile development an “emerging threat” and warned that the country’s long-range missile capabilities could eventually reach the U.S. mainland. This claim has raised eyebrows, as Pakistan’s missile program has historically been designed to counter regional threats, primarily India.
According to U.S. officials, Pakistan’s advancements in ballistic missile technology, particularly in solid-fuel propulsion systems and extended-range capabilities, indicate a shift towards a more sophisticated and potentially offensive missile strategy. The Shaheen-III missile, with a reported range of 2,750 kilometers, is seen as a sign that Pakistan is developing weapons beyond its immediate regional needs.
Furthermore, Washington’s decision to sanction private Pakistani firms indicates U.S. concerns over proliferation networks that might be involved in supplying dual-use materials — components that can be used for both civilian and military applications.
While the U.S. presents its decision as a non-proliferation effort, many analysts believe the sanctions are politically motivated and linked to broader geopolitical shifts in South Asia.
The United States and India have significantly expanded their defense and security cooperation, with the U.S. granting India access to advanced military technology and intelligence-sharing frameworks. By contrast, Pakistan has faced increasing restrictions on its defense acquisitions from Western countries. Some experts argue that Washington’s sanctions on Pakistan are designed to support India’s regional military advantage and restrict Pakistan’s ability to maintain a credible deterrence.
Another factor influencing U.S. actions is Pakistan’s deepening defense and economic ties with China. Pakistan has jointly developed the JF-17 fighter jet with China and has received military hardware, missile technology, and nuclear assistance from Beijing in the past. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a major infrastructure project under China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), has also strengthened Pakistan-China relations. The U.S. views China’s growing influence in South Asia as a strategic threat, and the sanctions on Pakistan may be part of a wider strategy to counter Beijing’s expansionist policies.
The sanctions may also be aimed at pressuring Pakistan to align more closely with U.S. strategic interests. Historically, Pakistan has maintained a balancing act between the U.S. and China, but recent developments suggest a shift towards Beijing and Moscow. By imposing sanctions, the U.S. might be attempting to coerce Pakistan into reducing its defense cooperation with China and limiting its missile development programs.
Pakistan has strongly rejected the U.S. sanctions, calling them “unjustified, discriminatory, and politically motivated.” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan issued a formal statement, saying:
“Pakistan’s missile program is entirely defensive in nature and is designed to ensure regional stability. We reject any attempts to undermine our legitimate right to self-defense.”
Additionally, Pakistan’s government has accused the U.S. of applying double standards in its policies. Officials have pointed out that:
Pakistani politicians and analysts argue that these sanctions are an attempt to weaken Pakistan’s strategic position in South Asia, allowing India to dominate the region militarily.
Pakistani Defense Analyst Lt. Gen (R) Amjad Shoaib stated:
“These sanctions have little to do with non-proliferation and everything to do with geopolitics. The U.S. is using pressure tactics to contain Pakistan and favor India in the regional security equation.”
International reactions to the U.S. sanctions on Pakistan have been mixed. While some Western outlets support Washington’s stance on non-proliferation, others highlight the political nature of the move.
“Pakistan’s missile program is evolving in response to shifting regional dynamics. The U.S. sanctions appear to be aimed at influencing Pakistan’s defense policies rather than merely curbing proliferation.”
“The sanctions will likely push Pakistan even closer to China and Russia, further reshaping the security architecture of South Asia.”
“The U.S. move is part of a broader strategy to weaken Chinese influence in South Asia by isolating its key regional partners.”
These perspectives indicate that many analysts view the sanctions as a geopolitical tool rather than a genuine arms control measure.
The U.S. sanctions on Pakistan’s defense entities mark an important turning point in U.S.-Pakistan relations. While Washington frames its decision as part of its non-proliferation policy, Pakistan and many international observers see it as an attempt to limit Pakistan’s strategic deterrence and align South Asia’s security landscape in India’s favor.
The sanctions could have long-term consequences, including:
Pakistan strengthening its defense partnership with China and Russia, seeking alternative suppliers for military technology.
Increased regional instability, as Pakistan may accelerate its missile development in response to perceived external pressures.
Deterioration of U.S.-Pakistan relations, potentially affecting counterterrorism cooperation and regional diplomatic ties.
Ultimately, these sanctions are not just about missile technology—they are about global power struggles, regional alliances, and the balance of influence in South Asia. Whether these measures achieve their intended effect or further alienate Pakistan from the West remains to be seen.
The recent U.S. sanctions on Pakistan’s defense industry will likely exacerbate the existing trust deficit between the two nations, which has been shaped by a history of fluctuating alliances, strategic betrayals, and policy inconsistencies. The imposition of these sanctions at a time when Pakistan is trying to maintain strategic stability in the region will deepen Pakistan’s skepticism about U.S. intentions. Trust between the two nations has already been fragile due to past incidents where Pakistan felt abandoned or unfairly targeted. The sanctions are, therefore, not just an economic or military issue but a continuation of a historical pattern of strained relations.
To understand why these sanctions can further damage U.S.-Pakistan relations, it is important to revisit historical case studies where similar actions created long-lasting mistrust between the two countries.
During the 1980s, Pakistan was a key ally of the U.S. in countering Soviet forces in Afghanistan. The U.S. provided financial and military assistance to Pakistan, including advanced F-16 fighter jets. However, after the Soviet withdrawal, the U.S. abruptly cut off military and economic aid under the Pressler Amendment in 1990, citing concerns over Pakistan’s nuclear program.
“The U.S. used Pakistan as a frontline state against the Soviets and then discarded it like a used tissue paper.”
The Pressler sanctions led Pakistan to seek alternative alliances, deepening its defense cooperation with China and North Korea for military technology.
After the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan became a frontline ally in the U.S.-led War on Terror. The U.S. provided billions in military and economic aid to Pakistan in exchange for counter terrorism cooperation. However, the relationship remained deeply mistrustful due to differences in strategic interests.
Allegations of Double-Dealing: The U.S. repeatedly accused Pakistan of providing safe havens to the Taliban and Haqqani Network, despite Pakistan’s military conducting large-scale anti-terror operations.
2011 Osama bin Laden Raid: The unilateral U.S. operation in Abbottabad to kill Osama bin Laden further damaged trust. Pakistan saw this as a violation of its sovereignty, while the U.S. saw it as proof that Pakistan harbored terrorists.
Impact on Trust: Former CIA Director Leon Panetta bluntly stated:
“Either they were involved or incompetent. Either way, we can’t trust them.”
This incident led to a decline in U.S.-Pakistan military cooperation, and Pakistan began strengthening its defense ties with China and Russia as a counter balance.
The recent U.S. sanctions on Pakistan’s defense entities will reinforce Pakistan’s belief that the U.S. does not treat it as a reliable partner and applies double standards when it comes to military policy.
One of Pakistan’s biggest concerns is that the U.S. is deliberately weakening its strategic position while strengthening India.
“The U.S. preaches non-proliferation but arms our biggest regional rival to the teeth. This is not about security; it’s about geopolitics.”
“Washington’s preferential treatment of India and hostility toward Pakistan could destabilize South Asia, making conflict more likely rather than preventing it.”
Pakistan has been gradually increasing its military and economic cooperation with China and Russia. The recent U.S. sanctions will accelerate this shift, pushing Pakistan further into an anti-U.S. geopolitical camp.
China has already supplied Pakistan with nuclear reactors, missile technology, and fighter jets.
The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has made China Pakistan’s largest economic partner.
In response to U.S. sanctions, China might increase military assistance to Pakistan, further reducing Pakistan’s reliance on the U.S.
In recent years, Pakistan and Russia have held joint military exercises, a significant shift given their Cold War hostilities.
Russia has also agreed to supply military hardware to Pakistan, which was previously unthinkable.
A report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace noted:
“The more the U.S. isolates Pakistan, the deeper Pakistan’s security ties with China and Russia will grow. These sanctions are not containing Pakistan but pushing it towards America’s strategic rivals.”
Historically, Pakistan has played a key role in counterterrorism intelligence-sharing with the U.S., especially against groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. However, with increasing distrust, this cooperation could diminish.
A former Pakistani intelligence official warned:
“If the U.S. continues to punish Pakistan instead of engaging it, the biggest loser will be U.S. counterterrorism operations in the region.”
The latest U.S. sanctions on Pakistan are more than just an economic penalty; they represent another chapter in the long history of mistrust between the two nations. From the Pressler Amendment in 1990 to the War on Terror tensions, Pakistan has repeatedly felt betrayed by U.S. policy shifts. The 2024 sanctions reinforce the narrative that the U.S. is an unreliable partner, leading to:
If Washington wants to prevent a complete breakdown in relations, it must reconsider its approach, engage in diplomatic dialogue, and offer mutual security guarantees rather than isolating Pakistan. Otherwise, the trust deficit will continue to widen, pushing Pakistan toward strategic alliances that counterbalance U.S. influence in the region.