He noted that Pakistan currently had a relatively better track record in bilateral relations with the United States
DG Rangers Sindh Major General Muhammad Saeed. PHOTO: FILE PHOTO
ISLAMABAD:
Former Chief of General Staff (CGS) Lt Gen (retd) Saeed has said there is “intense debate in Pakistan” over a recent statement by US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard, noting that public reaction on social media suggests the view that “Pakistan is being framed as the next target, after Iran, with denuclearization as the ultimate goal”.
In a detailed statement on X’s social media platform, he quoted Gabbard as saying that the “five countries were ‘researching and developing a variety of new, advanced or conventional missile delivery systems with nuclear and conventional payloads that put our homeland within range’.”
He said an important point to note here was that Gabbard “didn’t single out Pakistan” and instead listed it alongside Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.
Lt Gen (retd) Saeed said this was not the first time Pakistan’s missile and nuclear program had been viewed with concern by US officials, adding that since the Pressler Amendment in 1985, “far more dangerous, offensive and focused allegations” had been made by US presidents, vice presidents, secretaries of state, CIA directors and members of Congress.
There was “nothing new to be alarmed about” in the current discourse, he stressed.
The former CGS further stated that private companies with even “mundane business links” with Pakistan’s strategic organizations had repeatedly been subjected to sanctions, adding that such measures had been used aggressively over the past five decades.
He said the list of affected companies was “too long”, adding that alongside these developments “massively funded sophisticated and relentless propaganda campaigns” had helped shape two dominant narratives in Pakistan.
According to him, the first narrative was that “nothing happens in this country without a nod from Uncle Sam,” while the second was that political and military leaders had been “portrayed as compromised on the nuclear program.”
He rejected these notions and said that if there had been any truth in them, Pakistan could not have developed its current nuclear and missile capabilities. Every leader over the past five decades, he said, had treated the strategic program as a matter of survival and had dealt with US-led Western pressure “resolutely and smartly”. “We should be proud of all of them.”
Referring to the broader geopolitical situation, he cautioned against comparing Pakistan to the fate of nuclear programs in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Iran, stating that those countries were “hardly at the starting point” while Pakistan was an “established and recognized nuclear power.”
He said that no established nuclear power with various delivery systems had ever been denuclearized, adding that “no power on earth can do that to Pakistan.” He emphasized the need for trust in the country’s strategic community and national determination.
Returning to Gabbard’s remarks, he said that compared to previous statements, “what she said is insignificant and so we can conveniently remove it.” He added that there was no need to publicly respond to every statement on such complex Pakinomist-strategic issues, adding that if a response was required, it should first be considered along with reactions from Russia, China and North Korea.
He noted that Pakistan currently had a relatively better track record in bilateral relations with the United States, although he described recent developments as potentially transitory, saying that American leadership remained “unpredictable as well as unreliable.”
Lt Gen (retd) Saeed questioned the urgency of any response, saying, “what is the emergency?” He added that those responsible for protecting Pakistan’s strategic program would examine the statement in detail and determine whether a response was necessary, concluding that “we have to trust them.”
