China has proposed, amongst others, that the United Nations , not military blocs or unilateral partnerships, should oversee global security frameworks. Adding further that arms control must be rooted in consensus-based multilateral institutions, and calls for developing countries to have a stronger voice in decision-making.

Nuclear governance

On nuclear weapons, the white paper reaffirmed China’s position on such matters, including its commitment to no-first-use and maintaining the “minimum level” of deterrence needed for national security . "China's nuclear weapons are not intended to threaten other countries but for defence and self-protection," the paper said.

China criticises what it describes as “exclusive alliances” and missile defence systems, which it argues undermine strategic stability. "Destroying its abandoned chemical weapons in China is Japan's unshirkable historical, political, and legal responsibility, and also an international obligation stipulated by the CWC," it stressed.

Further, some sections of the White Paper focus on outer space, cyberspace, and artificial intelligence, which the country says are becoming central to global security.

China has thus called for a treaty banning weapons in outer space, UN-led standards for cyber operations, and a responsible and transparent development of military AI.

The country further argued that without global rules, technological competition will become a major driver of instability.

“We're the No. 1 nuclear power, which I hate to admit because it's so horrible. It's such a horrible situation if it ever has to be used,” he said. “Russia's second. China's a distant third. But they'll catch us within four or five years. They want to catch us, and they'll be able to catch us.” 

“We're maybe working on a plan to denuclearize the three of us. We'll see if that works,” he added.

Recently, Trump ordered the Pentagon to resume the testing of nuclear weapons, which, if it is pushed through, will be the first to be conducted since 1992. 

This move came amid an informal global moratorium on nuclear testing, and after Trump accused Russia and China of covert underground nuclear testing. 

While watching out for its competitors, the US has never lost a war , Trump said. 

“Never lost a war. We still don't lose wars. We just sometimes don't fight to win,” he said. 

“We'll stay around the country for 15 years, just bomb the hell out of everybody, make everybody miserable. Nobody knows why we're there.”

“China is committed to peaceful development, follows a policy of 'no first use' of nuclear weapons and a nuclear strategy that focuses on self-defence, and adheres to its nuclear testing moratorium,” Mao said.

Trump had claimed China, Russia , North Korea and Pakistan were all secretly testing nuclear weapons underground. 

He used this claim to preface the resumption of the US’ own tests — the first conducted in more than 30 years. 

“It's hoped that the US will earnestly abide by its obligations under the Treaty and its commitment to a moratorium on nuclear testing, and take concrete actions to uphold the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime, as well as global strategic balance and stability,” Mao said.

To be clear: Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is India-specific and rooted in the principle of credible minimum deterrence. Its longest-range missile – Shaheen III – has a range of 2,750 km, sufficient to cover targets in the Indian subcontinent, including the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, where India maintains strategic assets. That is the extent of Pakistan’s nuclear ambition; it has no plans to develop ICBMs and remains the only nuclear-armed state without one.

Despite these facts, dubious speculation abounds suggesting that Pakistan wants an ICBM capable of reaching the US in order to deter Washington from intervening on India’s behalf in a future conflict. This faulty logic then suggests that since no ICBM-possessing country outside of Nato is considered a US ally, Pakistan therefore becomes a de facto adversary. Such assertions collapse under scrutiny.

Pakistan and the United States have been partners since 1947 . Over the decades—from the 1950s through the Cold War and into the post-9/11 era—the relationship has had ups and downs but has proved to be enduring. In contrast, Pakistan’s chief rival, India, has an uneven relationship with Washington, shaped by Cold War-era alignment with the Soviet Union and a long flirtation with non-alignment. Even today, despite grand declarations of strategic partnership, India continues to prioritise its ties with Russia . Since the Ukraine war began in 2022, India has capitalised on discounted Russian oil and gas , re-exporting it at a profit. It also leads BRICS initiatives aimed at challenging the US-led world order.

Why, then, the renewed effort to portray Pakistan and the US as potential adversaries? Who benefits from this fiction? In the May 2025 hostilities between India and Pakistan, President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio chose diplomacy over partisanship. They mediated a ceasefire, underscoring Washington’s commitment to regional stability. The US chose even-handed diplomacy over partisanship in favour of India.

Furthermore, by attempting to smear Pakistan on the basis that no ICBM-possessing nation is a US ally, these speculative voices ironically draw attention to India, which has already tested the Agni-V platform, an ICBM with a range of 5,500 to 8,000 km. Has that made India a US adversary? India is now developing a MIRV-capable Agni-VI, with an estimated range of 9,000 to 16,000 km. If ICBMs automatically signal hostility, why is India exempt? The logic is inconsistent.

Partly to blame is the unchecked “ Indomania ” that skewed US policy under the Biden administration by exaggerating and mischaracterising the Pakistani military’s research and development programme. For instance, the development of large rocket motors for MIRV-enabled intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs), with a declared range of 2,200 km, or for space launchers, is entirely within Pakistan’s defensive remit. Misrepresenting them as an ICBM programme, as a former US National Security Council official suggested last December, is inaccurate. The sanctions that followed—targeting four Pakistani entities—were unjustified.

India exploits such attitudes to undermine Pakistan by seeding disinformation through selected media outlets and amplifying it via domestic megaphone journalism—TV channels, newspapers and social media—all orchestrated by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The real goal is to curb or cap Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities via US pressure, while deflecting attention from India’s rapid ICBM expansion. Though India claims these weapons are aimed at China, its intent is ambiguous, especially given its growing ties with Beijing and a hedging behaviour in light of the Trump Administration’s regional realignment .

Critics also ignore India’s growing military ambitions. It is accelerating the regional missile race by expanding its footprint in Tajikistan, Oman, Madagascar, Mauritius and Seychelles. By falsely accusing Pakistan, it tries to obscure its own ICBMs in plain sight while hiding behind a Beltway consensus, which is right now fraying, that frames India as a steadfast US ally. Despite Indian provocations, Pakistan has chosen restraint - committed to credible, proportional deterrence rather than open-ended arms competition. Its only adversary is India, right on its borders. The US, a long-standing partner of Pakistan, does not factor into this equation.

Many of those fanning fears about Pakistan’s missile intentions previously served as advisors during the Biden Administration and helped shape a narrative rooted in mistrust. Their talking points are out of step with current realities, particularly with the Trump Administration’s role de-escalating the 2025 India-Pakistan crisis. Contrary to some expectations, the US did not side with India. Since the ceasefire, President Trump has adopted a balanced approach, offering assistance on Kashmir and acknowledging Pakistan’s stabilising role. The latest round of speculative theorising not only omits this diplomatic progress but fails to recognise India’s increasingly aggressive posture, which only increases the threat that nuclear ICBMs pose to global peace.

The opinions and thoughts expressed in this article reflect only the author's views.

Masood Khan is Pakistan’s former Ambassador to the United States, United Nations and China.

“We have no plan for negotiation at this stage [with the United States],” Baqaei said. “We are focused on examining the effects and consequences of the action by the three European countries and the United States. Of course, it is natural for diplomacy, in the sense of ongoing contacts and consultations, to continue. Whenever we feel that diplomacy can be fruitful, we will certainly make decisions based on the country’s interests.”

In a pointed remark aimed at Washington, Baqaei stressed that Iran will not plead for talks.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran never begs for negotiations. Negotiation is a two-way street that must be decided upon with confidence regarding its benefits. Safeguarding national security and national interests is as important as preserving national dignity,” he declared.

The comments came amid international discussions over U.S. President Donald Trump ’s proposed plan for Gaza. Baqaei voiced serious concerns about the reaction of Palestinian resistance groups to the plan, which purports to recognise the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and to prevent continued Israeli occupation.

Pezeshkian said accusations against Tehran were misplaced, arguing that the real destabilising force in the Middle East was Israel . He accused the international community of punishing Iran while turning a blind eye to what he called Israeli aggression.

“Iran has never sought and will never seek to build a nuclear bomb,” he said. “Whereas those who disturb the peace and stability in the region are lies in Israel. But Iran is the one that is being punished for those actions.”

“We Iranians have extended their power in the world , not by producing and employing nuclear weapons, nor by the slaughter of hundreds of thousands in the 20th century, nor by genocide and the imposition of starvation upon the children in Gaza in the 21st century,” he added.

Pezeshkian invoked the Persian poet Saadi to emphasise the moral weight of his message, saying that those responsible for the killing of children did not deserve to be regarded as trustworthy partners.

“If you have no sympathy for human pain, the name of human you cannot pertain,” he said. “Those criminals who bully by murdering children are not worthy of the name human being and assuredly they shall never prove to be trustworthy partners.”

The Iranian leader also sought to portray his country as a reliable actor on the global stage. 

“Relying upon its time-honored tradition of altruism and human fellowship, Iran is a steadfast partner and a trustworthy companion for all peace seeking countries of friendship and the partnership grounded not in fleeting expediency but in dignity, trust, and a shared future,” he said.

His speech came two months after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened further strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, warning that Washington would “wipe out” any attempt by Tehran to restart its programme. 

Iran has consistently denied seeking nuclear weapons, maintaining that its activities are for civilian energy purposes. Tehran’s foreign minister warned at the time that any repeat of U.S. or Israeli attacks would be met with a “decisive” response.

The original nuclear agreement, established in 2015, encouraged Iran to limit its nuclear ambitions in exchange for sanctions relief. This accord was abandoned by President Trump in 2018, prompting Iran to expand its nuclear efforts, notably increasing uranium enrichment to 60%. In a recent development, President Trump communicated an ultimatum to Iran's Supreme Leader, signaling that negotiations are time-sensitive, but Iranian officials dismissed the notion of direct talks with the U.S., while still considering indirect communication.

Trump asserted that any new agreement would differ significantly from the prior accord, positing that his expectations are more stringent. By contrast, Iranian representatives have expressed reservations about the viability of a deal under the current U.S. administration, particularly with concerns regarding Iran's right to maintain its nuclear program. While some U.S. officials have suggested that negotiations should center on verification of Iran's enrichment activities rather than insisting on total disbandment, others like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have called for a complete dismantlement of Iran's nuclear capabilities, a stance that Iran firmly rejects as untenable.

Iranian entities have reiterated their commitment to developing a civilian nuclear program and criticized the Trump administration for sending inconsistent signals regarding negotiations. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasized that discussions surrounding their enrichment program are non-negotiable, as the nation wishes to build trust without compromising its sovereignty on nuclear matters.

The political dynamics also involve Israel , which has shown staunch opposition to any concessions that may allow Iran to retain nuclear capabilities. Prime Minister Netanyahu has voiced unwavering support for aggressive measures to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Israeli official discourse indicates dissatisfaction with the U.S.-Iran negotiations, suggesting that they may undermine Israeli security interests. Recent reports indicate that the Israeli government has expressed concerns about U.S. timelines for striking Iran’s nuclear facilities, and President Trump has urged caution regarding military actions, preferring to allow diplomacy to take precedence.

The renewed discussions come after a letter from U.S. President Donald Trump to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which called for direct negotiations and implied possible military action if Tehran did not comply. Iran opted to engage in indirect discussions via Omani channels, rejecting any form of diplomacy based on coercion. The first round of talks was held in Muscat on April 12, marking a significant engagement since the breakdown of the 2015 nuclear accord, which both parties described as “positive and constructive.”

Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy to the Middle East , stirred conversations earlier this week by indicating that Washington might accept uranium enrichment levels up to 3.67%, as delineated in the 2015 agreement. Nonetheless, he quickly reverted to a stance demanding complete cessation of Iranian enrichment activities. In response, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reiterated Iran’s commitment to addressing global concerns while asserting the nation’s right to enrich uranium, emphasizing that this sovereignty matters greatly to Iran.

These negotiations occur against the backdrop of the economic turmoil exacerbated by Trump’s maximum pressure campaign, which has significantly harmed Iran’s economy . Notably, the Iranian rial suffered a dramatic decline, hitting a historic low against the dollar. Following the initial talks on April 12, the rial experienced a considerable recovery, suggesting a burgeoning public hope that ongoing diplomatic negotiations might alleviate the nation’s economic hardships. Nevertheless, Iran has persisted in advancing its nuclear program, demonstrating that external pressures have not successfully redirected its strategic ambitions.

“We ratify once again Cuba's unwavering commitment to peace, to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and to the non-performance of nuclear tests,” Díaz-Canel said during the meeting.

The Cuban leader praised the long-standing relationship between Cuba and the CTBTO, and expressed gratitude for the organization's support in developing the country's scientific and institutional capabilities in nuclear monitoring and disarmament efforts.

Díaz-Canel also commended Floyd’s personal dedication to building what he described as a “robust, armored, effective, and efficient verification system” for nuclear weapons testing, Granma reports.

He also acknowledged the CTBTO's support in training Cuban experts, facilitating access to international data, and enhancing Cuba’s scientific programs and comparative studies related to nuclear monitoring and policy .

Reflecting on global nuclear tensions, Floyd noted the continued relevance of Cuba’s role, especially in light of its early commitment to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Cuba was among the first five nations to ratify the treaty, doing so in January 2018—just months after signing it at the UN in September 2017.

“Even in these dark times for global disarmament efforts, our organisation remains a flame,” Floyd said.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons officially entered into force on January 22, 2021, as part of global efforts to eliminate nuclear arms.

According to the Global Firepower Index 2024, here are 10 countries in the world with the largest fleet:

Russia : Russia leads the world with a formidable fleet of 65 submarines. This includes a mix of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs), and diesel-electric attack submarines (SSKs).

United States : The United States follows with 64 submarines. The U.S. Navy's fleet includes Ohio-class SSBNs and Virginia-class SSNs, which are known for their advanced technology and strategic importance.

China : China's People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) boasts 61 submarines. This fleet comprises both nuclear-powered and diesel-electric submarines, with ongoing developments to enhance its nuclear-powered capabilities.

North Korea : North Korea has a surprising 35 submarines. While many of these are older and smaller vessels, they still pose a significant threat in regional waters due to their sheer numbers and strategic deployment.

Japan : Japan operates a fleet of 23 submarines. The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) focuses on advanced diesel-electric submarines, known for their stealth and efficiency.

South Korea : South Korea's fleet consists of 22 submarines. The Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) has been expanding its submarine capabilities, including the development of indigenous designs.

Iran : Iran maintains a fleet of 19 submarines. These include a mix of smaller, coastal submarines and a few larger vessels, reflecting Iran's strategic focus on asymmetric naval warfare.

India: India's fleet includes 18 submarines. The Indian Navy operates a combination of nuclear-powered and diesel-electric submarines, with ongoing projects to expand and modernise its underwater force.

Turkey: Turkey has 12 submarines. The Turkish Navy's fleet primarily consists of diesel-electric submarines, with plans to introduce more advanced models in the future.

Greece : Greece rounds out the top ten with 11 submarines. The Hellenic Navy's fleet is composed of modern diesel-electric submarines, emphasising regional maritime security.

The summit, which brought together representatives from around the world, concluded with a non-binding agreement emphasising the importance of human oversight in nuclear decision-making. China even though agrees with the "blueprint for action," did not sign the agreement.

According to South Korea's foreign affairs minister, Cho Tae-yul, humans must take charge of their safety instead of leaving it to technology despite the efficiency of the latter.

"This duality - AI as both an enabler of security and a potential disruptor - underscores the complexity of building the normative and institutional framework for governing AI in the military domain. Yet, the undeniable truth remains it is not the technology but our will and choices that will determine the future. We are responsible for our future," he said at the summit.

The Responsible AI in the Military Domain (REAIM) summit in Seoul, the second event of its kind, builds on the foundation laid by the previous summit held in The Hague in 2023.

The spokesperson for Iran's foreign ministry, Nasser Kanani, categorically rejected the claims: "We strongly reject the accusations regarding Iran's role in exporting arms to one side of the war."

Kanani, however, emphasised that Iran maintains a neutral stance in the conflict and does not support any side through military means.

"We have clearly stated that we are not part of the war and conflict in Ukraine. We believe that the political solution is the best solution to end the current crisis in Ukraine," he added.

According to reports from US media last week, Washington suspects that Iran has supplied weapons to Russia for use in the Ukraine conflict, based on information from anonymous sources.

Meanwhile, EU spokesman, Peter Stano has said the union was aware of credible information to confirm Iran's involvement in sending arms to Russia.

"We are aware of the credible information provided by allies on the delivery of Iranian ballistic missiles to Russia. We are looking further into it with our member states and if confirmed, this delivery would represent a substantive material escalation in Iran's support for Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine," Stano said.