In a development that raises more questions than it answers, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently issued a statement affirming the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. This came amid unverified reports of a radiation leak following a reported Indian strike near Pakistan’s Nur Jahan airbase, believed to be in proximity to key Pakistani nuclear assets.
The IAEA’s prompt dismissal of any threat may have been an attempt to defuse global concern, but the timing is suspicious, coinciding with Washington’s predictable backing of Pakistan as a “responsible nuclear state.” This posture aligns with President Donald Trump’s bizarre and diplomatically tone-deaf comparison of India and Pakistan as nuclear equals. Responsible India and rogue-state Pakistan on the same pedestal? By what yardstick—military discipline or economic accountability?
The deeper question haunting strategic circles is: if these nuclear assets truly belong to Pakistan, why did reports emerge—both from credible defense analysts and through U.S. flight tracker enthusiasts—of an American military aircraft arriving on the scene shortly after India’s cross-border action? Could it be that some of these so-called Pakistani nukes are actually under a form of covert American custodianship, or worse, jointly operated? If not, why the urgency and concern in Washington?
India, naturally, has raised its eyebrows at the narrative being spun by the West. While the IAEA and the U.S. were quick to issue clean chits and defensive statements, Indian officials remained tight-lipped, letting silence speak where history, capability, and strategy already have. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has made it abundantly clear over the past decade that India does not seek conflict but will not tolerate provocation. The message was underlined when India struck back hard following Pakistani misadventures, and not a single civilian was harmed—a feat unmatched even by military powers like Russia or Israel in active conflict zones.
Yet, propaganda mills in Pakistan and sympathetic Western media ran with tall tales: half a dozen Indian jets downed, Rafales destroyed, and Pakistan victorious. If that were true, why did the Pakistani Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) rush to seek a ceasefire? Why did Pakistan beg for de-escalation through backchannels, rather than continuing the conflict to prove its so-called dominance?
The truth is simpler: Pakistan miscalculated—again. And this time, India, steeled by economic might and military modernization, gave it a hard lesson. The rules of the game have changed.
Under Modi and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, India has executed foreign policy with Chanakyan precision. Gone are the days of Congress-era diplomatic submissiveness and strategic paralysis. Today’s India sends teams across the globe not to explain itself, but to assert its truths—facts, not fiction, to counter the half-truths peddled by confused White House briefings or geopolitical spin doctors in Brussels.
America’s inconsistency has been laid bare. Trump’s dual-faced approach—one moment encouraging Modi to act decisively, and the next equating India with Pakistan—betrays a deeper strategic hypocrisy. The U.S. does not view India as an equal partner. It prefers dealing with pliable, chaotic regimes like Pakistan to protect its limited regional interests under the guise of “maintaining stability.”
Yet India, confident in its rising status as a global player, no longer craves Western approval. It nurtures enduring partnerships—with Russia, Israel, Japan, Australia, and Germany—and deals with China on its terms. Even as Beijing continues to support Pakistan for its Belt and Road Initiative interests in PoK and Balochistan, it knows better than to escalate a direct conflict with India. Galwan and Tawang were not just skirmishes; they were warnings.
India holds a critical geographic, economic, and geopolitical advantage over China in South Asia. And China—ambitious, yet vulnerable—cannot afford an unnecessary war when its economy is facing headwinds and its global image is already tarnished.
So, the real message is not to the IAEA, or even to Pakistan—it is to the United States: Stop underestimating India. This is not the India of 1965 or even 1999. This is New Bharat—self-reliant, assertive, and unwilling to be patronized. If American nukes are not in Pakistan, then the U.S. should stop rushing to defend Islamabad every time a missile flies. And if they are, then Washington must come clean and accept the risk it has taken by placing strategic assets in the hands of an unstable state.
Modi’s India does not respond to nuclear blackmail. It prepares for it, counters it, and, if needed, neutralizes it. The next time Pakistan—or its sponsors—think of provoking India, they should consider this: One misadventure, and Pakistan may cease to exist on the map. No country—neither the U.S. nor China—will be able to save it.
The subcontinent has changed. The world must now recalibrate its equations accordingly.
