He noted that Pakistan currently had a relatively better trajectory in bilateral relations with the United States
DG Rangers Sindh Major General Muhammad Saeed. PHOTO: FILE PHOTO
ISLAMABAD:
Former chief of general staff (CGS) Lieutenant General (retd) Saeed has said there is an “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 next target, after Iran, with denuclearisation being the ultimate goal”.
In a detailed statement on social media platform of X, he quoted Gabbard as saying that the “five countries were ‘researching and developing an array of novel, advanced or traditional 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 had 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 programme 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 American 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 relations” with Pakistan’s strategic organisations 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”, and added 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 “framed as compromised on nuclear programme.”
He rejected these notions, saying 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 programme as a matter of survival and had handled US-led Western pressure “resolutely and smartly”. “We ought to be proud of them all.”
Referring to the broader geopolitical situation, he cautioned against comparing Pakistan with the fate of nuclear programmes in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Iran, stating that those countries were “barely at start point” while Pakistan was an “established and recognised nuclear power.”
He said no established nuclear power with diverse delivery systems had ever been denuclearised and added that “no power on earth can do so against Pakistan.” He stressed the need for trust in the country’s strategic community and national resolve.
Returning to Gabbard’s remarks, he said that compared to past statements, “what she said is insignificant, hence, we can conveniently brush it aside.” He added there was no need to respond publicly to every statement in such complex geo-strategic matters, adding that if a response was required, it should first be considered alongside reactions from Russia, China and North Korea.
He noted that Pakistan currently had a relatively better trajectory in bilateral relations with the United States, although he described recent developments as potentially transitory, saying US leadership remained “unpredictable as well as unreliable.”
Lt Gen (retd) Saeed questioned the urgency of any reaction, stating, “what is the emergency?” He added that those responsible for safeguarding Pakistan’s strategic programme would examine the statement in detail and determine whether a response was necessary, concluding that “we must trust them.”
