U.S. Sanctions on Pakistan: Regional Stability at Risk

The imposition of U.S. sanctions on Pakistan’s ballistic missile program adds another chapter to a long and contentious history of sanctions-driven diplomacy between the two nations. At the heart of this issue lies a fundamental divergence in priorities and perspectives. The United States frames its sanctions as a necessary response to a perceived threat posed by Pakistan’s missile program, arguing that the program’s capabilities extend beyond regional concerns to potentially threaten the U.S. itself. This perspective underscores America’s broader approach to nuclear non-proliferation and global security. However, from Pakistan’s viewpoint, these sanctions are discriminatory and reflective of a broader bias that disregards its legitimate security concerns, particularly in a region dominated by an adversarial India. This divergence is emblematic of the broader mistrust and misalignment that have characterized U.S.-Pakistan relations for decades.

One of the most critical aspects of these sanctions is their destabilizing effect on regional dynamics. Pakistan, already entrenched in a hostile rivalry with India, sees its missile program as a necessary deterrent against an increasingly militarized neighbour. India’s substantial investments in defence and strategic capabilities, often supported or tacitly accepted by the West, create a perception of an uneven playing field. By targeting Pakistan’s missile program while largely overlooking India’s similar developments, the U.S. reinforces perceptions of favouritism, which can exacerbate regional instability. Such measures risk fuelling an arms race in South Asia, as Pakistan seeks alternative means to strengthen its deterrent capabilities. The sanctions not only undermine regional security but also complicate global non-proliferation efforts by fostering resentment and resistance from the very actors whose behaviour the sanctions aim to influence.

Economically, the sanctions have significant implications for Pakistan’s already fragile economy. Targeting entities involved in Pakistan’s missile program restricts their access to global financial systems and freezes assets, limiting their operational capacity. These measures also send a broader signal to international investors, deterring foreign investment in Pakistan and further isolating its economy. Given Pakistan’s precarious fiscal situation, marked by rising debt and a dependency on external assistance, the sanctions could exacerbate economic challenges for the government and ordinary citizens. The broader chilling effect of sanctions often extends beyond the immediate targets, constraining entire sectors and limiting opportunities for economic growth. In a nation grappling with inflation, unemployment, and limited fiscal space, these sanctions could deepen economic vulnerabilities, further destabilizing an already fragile state.

From a geopolitical standpoint, the sanctions reflect a shifting landscape of global alliances and power dynamics. U.S.-Pakistan relations, once anchored by shared strategic objectives during the Cold War and the post-9/11 era, have become increasingly transactional and fraught with mistrust. The sanctions signal a cooling of relations and reinforce Pakistan’s pivot toward alternative powers such as China and Russia. This realignment is particularly evident in Pakistan’s deepening partnership with China through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and increased engagement with Russia in defence and energy sectors. While these alignments offer Pakistan new opportunities for economic and strategic collaboration, they also heighten its dependency on nations with their own geopolitical ambitions. For the U.S., these sanctions may serve short-term objectives but could lead to long-term strategic losses as Pakistan increasingly distances itself from the American-led global order.

Critically, the timing and justification of these sanctions raise important questions about their broader effectiveness and fairness. The U.S. justification for the sanctions—framed around the potential global threat posed by Pakistan’s missile program—has been met with scepticism. Pakistan has repeatedly emphasized that its missile program is defensive in nature, designed to counter regional threats rather than project power globally. By focusing on Pakistan while other regional actors with similar programs face little to no scrutiny, the U.S. risks undermining its credibility as a neutral arbiter in South Asia. This selective application of sanctions not only alienates Pakistan but also fuels narratives of bias and double standards in international diplomacy.

Moreover, these sanctions risk exacerbating anti-American sentiment within Pakistan, which is already high due to historical grievances and perceived injustices. The Pakistani government’s strong condemnation of the sanctions as “discriminatory” reflects broader public sentiment, which often views U.S. actions as an infringement on Pakistan’s sovereignty. Such perceptions can be exploited by populist leaders and nationalist groups, further complicating U.S. efforts to engage constructively with Pakistan. The sanctions, rather than fostering cooperation, may deepen mistrust and push Pakistan to double down on its strategic programs, undermining the very objectives they aim to achieve.

On a broader level, the effectiveness of sanctions as a tool of foreign policy warrants critical examination. Historically, sanctions have had mixed results, often failing to achieve their stated objectives while inflicting significant humanitarian and economic costs. In the case of Pakistan, past sanctions on its nuclear and missile programs have not deterred its strategic ambitions but have instead hardened its resolve to pursue self-reliance in these areas. The latest sanctions risk repeating this pattern, fostering resistance rather than compliance. Additionally, sanctions often fail to account for the complex realities of the targeted nation, including its security concerns, domestic politics, and economic challenges. This lack of contextual sensitivity limits their effectiveness and can lead to unintended consequences.

All things considered, the recent U.S. sanctions on Pakistan’s ballistic missile program highlight the complexities and limitations of using punitive measures to address security concerns. While the U.S. views these sanctions as a necessary step to curb a potential global threat, Pakistan perceives them as unjust, destabilizing, and reflective of broader biases. The sanctions’ economic, regional, and geopolitical implications underscore their far-reaching consequences, which extend beyond the immediate objectives. To achieve meaningful progress, both nations must move beyond the cycle of sanctions and countermeasures toward a more constructive and cooperative relationship. This requires acknowledging and addressing each other’s legitimate concerns, fostering dialogue, and building trust—a task that remains challenging but essential in an increasingly interconnected and volatile world.