Pakistan’s Nuclear Threat: A Shield for Terrorism or Strategic Posturing?

Poonam Sharma 

The latest nuclear warning made by Pakistan’s Envoy to Russia, Muhammad Khalid Jamali, has raised alarm about Islamabad’s strategic intentions. His recent statement, in an interview with RT, indicated that Pakistan would utilize the entire range of power—not nuclear as well—if India attacked militarily. This is at a time when tensions are rising due to the April 22 Pahalgam attack, which left 26 dead.

While Pakistan claims to be acting in self-defense, many analysts argue that this nuclear saber-rattling is an attempt to deter India from retaliating against Pakistan-based terror groups. The timing of Jamali’s statement, coupled with Pakistan’s history of supporting terrorism, raises serious questions about whether Islamabad is using its nuclear arsenal as a shield for extremist activities.

The Context: Escalating Hostilities

The Pahalgam terror strike has once again pushed India-Pakistan relations to the boil. Intelligence suggests that the attack was plotted on Pakistani soil, with terrorists being given logistic support from the other side of the border. Reacting, India has given its military operational liberty, indicating that retaliatory attacks might be at hand.

Pakistan, on its part, has brushed off accusations of participation, opting instead to breach the ceasefire agreement in various sectors along the Line of Control (LoC). For more than ten successive nights, Pakistani troops have been involved in cross-border shelling, which has elicited proportionate retaliation from Indian troops.

Pakistan’s Nuclear Posturing: A Strategic Shield?

Jamali’s statement is not an isolated incident. Pakistan has repeatedly used nuclear threats as a deterrence strategy against India’s conventional military superiority. His remarks specifically referenced leaked documents, allegedly indicating that India was planning military strikes on Pakistan.

This narrative of impending war seems to be an effort to legitimize Pakistan’s belligerent approach, while at the same time distracting from its sponsorship of terrorism. By connecting nuclear threats with water security, Pakistan is also ratcheting up tensions around the Indus Waters Treaty, further muddying diplomatic waters.

Pakistan’s Record of Terror Sponsorship

Pakistan’s refusal to support terrorism has been thoroughly discredited. Various intelligence agencies—India’s RAW, the CIA of the United States, and independent monitors—have verified that groups based in Pakistan, like Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), are indulging in attacks in India.

In spite of global pressure, Pakistan has not taken firm action against well-known terror masters living on its soil. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) put Pakistan on its grey list because of its ongoing funding of extremist organizations. Although Islamabad asserts that it has cracked down on militants, it is reported that most of these groups still function under new names, evading sanctions and pursuing their campaign of violence.

India’s Response: Enhanced Deterrence

India has exercised strategic restraint, opting for calibrated military retaliation instead of instant escalation. Nevertheless, the increasing military aggression from Pakistan, coupled with the government’s readiness to protect terrorist organizations, has led to demands for a more robust diplomatic response from India and its international allies.

World pressure has mounted ever more strongly against Pakistan’s double game—one of seeking international backing for regional peace while igniting violence through its own secret conduit.

A Dangerous Gambit

Pakistan’s newest nuclear threat should be understood within the broader context of geopolitical gamesmanship. Rather than an actual defense, it would seem to be a deflector of its deeper weaknesses—most especially its continued support of terrorism. When India responds against cross-border aggression, the world needs to see that Pakistan’s threats of nuclear retaliation are not primarily about deterrence but about keeping the card of its status as a state sponsor of terrorism in play.

In the future, a united effort must come from India, the UN, and world powers to call Pakistan out for its actions, making sure that nuclear threats are not an excuse for terror. The question still stands: Will the international community finally call Pakistan’s bluff?