The missile warning data is being shared in real time between the three allies as part of a growing regional security cooperation effort amid Pyongyang’s continued weapons testing.

“South Korea announced that North Korea had launched a ballistic missile, so I changed my plans to go out and have just received a report on the situation. Japan, the United States, and South Korea are working closely together, including sharing missile warning data in real time, to ensure a thorough response. The government is aware of this latest launch,” she told the press.

This is first diplomatic test after assuming office only a day prior.

The president’s remarks come amid heightened US operations near Venezuelan waters, which have sparked concern in Colombia over the safety of small fishing communities. Petro called on international human rights organisations to investigate.

“We know that two fishermen from Trinidad and Tobago were killed by a missile,” Petro said. “This is a war crime — an act of international aggression against a peace zone, the Caribbean.”

Linking the incident to broader geopolitical violence , Petro compared the situation in the Caribbean to the devastation in Gaza, asserting that “today’s struggles are struggles for life, and they are revolutionary.” He reiterated his government’s decision to suspend coal exports to Israel in protest of what he has called a “genocidal regime.”

Petro concluded his address with an appeal for vigilance among Caribbean governments and human rights defenders, urging them to “monitor and set alerts” against any future acts of foreign aggression, and to protect vulnerable coastal and island communities that remain without effective defence systems.

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.

Unlike medium‑range interceptors like Iron Dome (range: 4–70 km) or unproven high-end rivals, the ET‑LDHCM’s high-speed, low-altitude cruise profile makes it extremely difficult to detect or intercept.

It is also platform-agnostic, launchable from land, sea, or air, which expands its strategic versatility across the Indo-Pacific theatre.

India now joins the exclusive club of nations with indigenous hypersonic missile tech alongside the U.S., China, and Russia .

With a possible nuclear or conventional payload, long strike range, and flexible launch options, the ET‑LDHCM could shift Asia’s military powers.