Home

Featured Articles

Jul 01, 2025
Viren S Doshi

China versus United States: Involvement in Nur Khan Airbase

CCP Failures and Post-failure Infowar Overview Nur Khan Airbase, located in Chaklala, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, serves as the headquarters for the Pakistan Air Force’s (PAF) Air Mobility Command. Facts like Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-occupied China’s supply of approximately 81% of Pakistan’s arms including critical systems at Nur Khan airbase are overshadowed by unsubstantiated allegations of American control of this airbase, amplified by Pakistani left leaning analyst Imtiaz Gul following India’s Operation Sindoor (May 7–10, 2025). This analytical report examines American versus CCP-occupied China’s involvement at this airbase, the catastrophic failure of CCP-supplied systems during India’s strikes, and the disinformation campaign that followed the attack to deflect blame onto the United States. The report also notes the implausibility of India targeting a U.S.-manned airbase, given high-level Indo-U.S. communication that continued during the entire operation. Let us begin with an examination of the American involvement in this base. American Involvement at Nur Khan Airbase - A Legacy U.S.-Pakistan military cooperation at Nur Khan (formerly Chaklala) Airbase began in the 1950s with U-2 reconnaissance missions from bases like Badaber. Nur Khan airbase supported U.S. logistics, drone operations and intelligence missions for Afghanistan during the War on Terror (2001–2021). In 2005, approximately 300 U.S. troops and aircraft were deployed to Chaklala for earthquake relief. Claims of American “control” of this base are unsubstantiated, as Pakistan retains operational sovereignty, evidenced by the 2011 U.S. withdrawal from Shamsi Airbase. Logistical Presence: The U.S. maintains a limited presence at Nur Khan for F-16 maintenance and may be for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions, possibly monitoring the Ayatollah's Regime in Iran or Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP). F-16 Maintenance: The U.S. provides ongoing support for Pakistan’s Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon fleet, including a current $398 million aid package for maintenance, likely involving contractual technical advisors at Nur Khan or Jacobabad Airbase. Private contractors at Jacobabad indicate a specialised but limited U.S. role. Their precise role is to oversee the F-16 fleet, that it is not used against India or any sovereign nation and is used only for counter-terrorism purposes. Claims of U.S. Control: In June 2025, Imtiaz Gul claimed the Nur Khan base is “under American control,” alleging Pakistani officers are barred from interfering, citing frequent U.S. aircraft movements with undisclosed cargo. Neither the U.S. nor the Pakistani governments ever mentioned any such existing agreement or arrangement, suggesting these claims are unsubstantiated and probably misconstrued as American involvement in the F16 fleet maintenance through contractors. No American troops are in Pakistan. Hence, it follows that such claims are likely to have been purposed to fuel anti-U.S. sentiment by left-leaning forces. Indo-U.S. Coordination during Operation Sindoor: During India's strikes, Indian National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval and External Affairs Minister (EAM) S. Jaishankar and others were in continuous communication with their American counterparts, including U.S. National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The U.S. Vice President also communicated with the Indian Prime Minister. This high-level coordination ensured transparent alignment, making it highly improbable that India would target a base with significant U.S. personnel or control amid such live hot communication between the two democratic allies with a compact strategic relationship. The absence of any reported casualties or protests or retaliation (particularly given the America First commitment of the Trump-Vance Administration) from the U.S. further undermines claims of American operational control at Nur Khan airbase. No U.S. Air Defences: No evidence suggests U.S.-supplied air defences at Nur Khan, undermining claims of American technological failure. The base’s defences relied entirely on CCP systems, which collapsed under Indian strikes. CCP-Occupied China’s Arms Supplies to Pakistan According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), CCP-occupied China supplied 81% of Pakistan’s arms imports from 2020 to 2024, up from 74% in the previous five-year period, making CCP-occupied China Pakistan’s primary arms supplier and possibly a highly dominating supplier for equipment deployed at Nur Khan airbase systems. Key CCP-occupied China Systems at Nur Khan base: HQ-9 and HQ-16 Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) Systems: The HQ-9, a long-range SAM costing $3 million per unit, and the medium-range HQ-16 were deployed to protect Nur Khan airbase. Marketed by the CCP as comparable to U.S. Patriot systems, these understandably miserably failed to intercept India’s BrahMos and SCALP missiles during Operation Sindoor. Chengdu J-10C Vigorous Dragon Fighters: Pakistan’s No. 15 Squadron at Nur Khan airbase operates J-10C jets, which the CCP claimed downed Indian Dassault Rafale jets. India has not confirmed these claims, and satellite imagery suggests limited PAF air engagement. Wing Loong Drones: CCP-occupied China's Wing Loong series combat drones supported Pakistan’s unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) capabilities, with the Nur Khan base as a hub for drone operations. However, these drones failed to dent Indian Systems or installations. Satellite and Radar Support: CCP-occupied China’s MIZARVISION provided post-strike satellite imagery, while CCP-occupied China redeployed radar systems and adjusted satellite coverage over India to enhance Pakistan’s situational awareness level. Pakistan itself turns into a proxy of the CCP, while its proxy war on India has started costing it dearly. Post-Conflict Commitments: After Operation Sindoor, CCP-occupied China pledged 40 Shenyang J-35A stealth fighters starting in 2026, HQ-19 ballistic missile defence systems and additional Wing Loong drones to establish a PAF drone brigade, deepening Pakistan’s reliance on CCP arms. And last, but not least - Nuclear Assistance: CCP-occupied China has supported Pakistan’s nuclear program with four Chashma reactors and low-enriched uranium, safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), underscoring the CCP’s strategic influence over Pakistan’s military capabilities. Operation Sindoor and CCP-Occupied China’s Failures Indian Strikes: Launched in response to the April 22, 2025 Pahalgam terror attack (26 civilian deaths), Operation Sindoor targeted Nur Khan and 10 other airbases (Rafiqui, Murid, Bholari, Jacobabad etc.) with BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles, SCALP air-launched cruise missiles and Harop kamikaze drones. Satellite imagery from MIZARVISION, Maxar Technologies, and India’s KAWASPACE confirmed extensive damage: a 7,000-square-foot complex demolished, two command-and-control trucks destroyed, and runways damaged with huge craters, disrupting 20% of PAF infrastructure, including C-130 Hercules transports and IL-78 refuelers. CCP-occupied China Systems’ Collapse: The HQ-9 and HQ-16 systems failed to intercept India’s missiles, and an HQ-9 unit at Walton Airport was ineffective against Harop drones. CCP analysts blamed poor Pakistani training, but the systems’ inability to counter advanced Indian munitions exposed their inferiority. Media posts highlighted the HQ-9’s failure to detect low-flying missiles, undermining CCP’s claims of technological parity. Strategic Fallout: Nur Khan’s proximity to the Strategic Plans Division (SPD), overseeing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, made the strikes a major psychological blow. The U.S., anticipating a perceived “decapitation” threat, intervened via Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Finally, the Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two militaries secured a ceasefire on May 10, 2025. CCP-Occupied China’s Disinformation Campaign - Loser fighting doubly, but losing terribly False Success Narratives: CCP-controlled media and social media posts of its deep assets claimed J-10C jets downed Indian Rafales, despite no Indian confirmation and minimal evidence of PAF air engagement. This propaganda aims to bolster CCP-occupied China’s $50 billion arms export market, with Pakistan as its largest client, by portraying CCP systems as superior to Western alternatives. Deflecting Blame: The amplification of unverified claims of U.S. control over Nur Khan, such as Gul’s allegations, is done by leftist media moles to shift focus from CCP failures. By framing the U.S. as compromising Pakistan’s sovereignty, the CCP obscures the HQ-9 and HQ-16’s deficiencies, which were jammed and bypassed by Indian missiles. Doctored Evidence: A viral video falsely linked to Nur Khan’s damage was debunked as footage from Sudan’s Khartoum Airport (March 2025). Pakistan’s claims of retaliatory strikes on Indian airbases like Adampur were discredited as doctored images (e.g. a cloud shadow mistaken for a bomb crater). And the Indian PM nailed this fakery by visiting the base. Geopolitical Agenda: The CCP’s $60 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) investments, with dual-use potential, underscore its strategic grip on Pakistan. By pushing anti-U.S. narratives, the CCP seeks to deepen Pakistan’s dependency, counter India’s military indigenisation and modernisation and challenge U.S. influence in South Asia. Conclusion Nur Khan Airbase remains under Pakistani control, with limited legacy U.S. involvement in F-16 maintenance and ISR. CCP-occupied China, supplying 81% of Pakistan’s arms, suffered a devastating failure during Operation Sindoor, as its HQ-9 and HQ-16 systems collapsed against Indian strikes. The CCP’s disinformation campaign, amplifying unverified U.S. control claims and fabricating Pakistani successes, seeks to obscure its technological deficiencies and protect its arms market and geopolitical stakes. High-level Indo-U.S. coordination during the operation debunks claims of India targeting a U.S.-manned base, highlighting the CCP’s manipulative narratives.

Jun 27, 2025
Ramaharitha Pusarla

Double Standards or Realpolitik? U.S. Playbook on Nuclear Brinkmanship Part 2

The threat from Iran’s Islamic regime to Israel is clear, and a nuclear-armed Iran can be an existential danger to Israel. While an inverted logic continues to label Israel as the aggressor, a close look at the Ayatollah’s remarks approves of a jihadi war against Israel. Iran’s Axis of Resistance is not a figment of imagination as Khamenei at a prayer sermon in February 2012 said, “We have intervened in the anti-Israel struggle, and the results have been the victories in the 33 days war [the 2006 war with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon] and the 22 days war [Israel’s attacks on the Gaza strip in December 2008]. From now on, we will also support any nation, any group that confronts the Zionist regime; we will help them, and we are not shy about doing so. Israel will go, it must not survive, and it will not”2. Iran’s deeply entrenched anti-Zionism gradually evolved into a series of proxy wars- manifesting in cyberattacks, maritime sabotages and acts of terrorism. The ongoing Gaza conflict intensified the rivalry, culminating in two rounds of direct missile and drone retaliatory strikes in April and October 2024. Operation Rising Lion has established Israeli dominance over Iranian airspace. With excellent operational synchronisation and superior Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, Israel prevailed over Iran in an operation that had tacit American approval. Even Israel’s cities, military and intelligence installations and economic hubs also suffered severe damage in the retaliatory strikes. Vowing a complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities, Israel refused to back down, raising fears of a full-blown war. A war in the Middle East dragged into its ninth day, in an unprecedented operation- ‘Midnight Hammer’, seven US B-2 bombers hurled 14 bunker bombs at the Iranian nuclear facilities- Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Pulling out a shocker, President Trump sent out a chilling message through a comprehensive and devastating bombing. Since assuming office, Trump repeatedly stated, “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon…. You cannot have peace if Iran has a nuclear bomb”. Shortly, as a retribution, Iran announced “Operation Tidings of Victory” to attack US bases in the region. However, barring America’s Al-Udeid base in Qatar, none have been hit. Iran had notified the US officials prior to the attack, minimising the losses, if any. Soon, Trump called for a ceasefire, and both countries, after their fair share of violations, abided by it. Terming the attacks on the US base in Qatar a “slap in the face”, the Iranian regime claimed victory much like Pakistan after Operation Sindoor. The eerie similarities don’t end there, as Trump’s social media posts on the ceasefire in both cases had the same template, with the only difference being a change in names. America’s blatant breach of Iran’s territorial airspace and the audacious air raid to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities sparked a global debate. Critics argue these actions undermine the UN, erode the foundations of international law and compromise the US’s moral standing in condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Far from reinforcing deterrence, US strikes might inadvertently prompt countries to pursue nuclear weapons as a safeguard against external intervention. On a different count, the US strikes have provided a temporary reprieve, enabling a broader momentum for the expansion of the Abraham Accords and the realignment of US Arab allies with Israel. A weakened Iran can shift the regional dynamics, opening new avenues for addressing the Gaza issue. Satellite imagery revealing dotted truck convoys outside Iran’s Fordow facility—captured just before US strikes—has fuelled speculation that enriched uranium was covertly relocated to secure locations. While a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure might stall its ambitions, it is unlikely to extinguish them. Armed with technological know-how, Iran’s path to developing nuclear weapons would be delayed, not derailed. The US justified its strikes on Iran citing its long-standing designation of a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran’s cultivated jihadi militia has ring-fenced Israel leading to regional insecurity. A parallel dynamic exists in the Indian sub-continent, where unmissable similarities emerge between the Islamic regime of Iran and the jihadi leadership in Pakistan. While Ayatollahs refused to bow down to US wishes, Pakistan has positioned itself as a compliant proxy of Western interests. In 1979, cleric Ayatollah seized power in Tehran - around the same time, Pakistan’s Zia-ul-Haq created the Afghan Mujahideen to take on the Soviet forces. Pakistan under Zia became the most important player in America’s fight against the Communist USSR. Aligning governance with Islamic laws, Zia Islamised Pakistan. Despite his distaste for Western values, Zia consciously aligned with the US. Capitalising on its strategic geographic location, Zia allowed Pakistan to become a launch pad for America’s strategic pursuits in the region. As a result, Pakistan continues to remain in the good books of America despite its indubitable reputation as the ‘mothership of terrorism’. Pakistan is home to several internationally proscribed terror outfits. Indeed, eight Americans were killed in the Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Taiba Mumbai attacks in 2008. Grey-listed thrice by FATF for sponsoring terrorism, Ghazwa-e-Hind, the cornerstone of Pakistan’s anti-India policy, is an existential threat to India. The core tenets of Islamic regime of Iran and Pakistan are based on same jihadi ideology. But the US chose to turn a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear program and allowed it to accumulate a stockpile and make weapons. For decades, Pakistan wielded cross-border terrorism as a geopolitical tool to destabilise India. Yet, unlike Iran, Pakistan enjoys the status of a major non-NATO ally of the United States. Adroitly managing the US, Pakistan has evaded international censure and continues to acquire advanced weaponry from the US. Adeptly kow-towing to the US strategic interests, Pakistan amassed a nuclear arsenal on par with India, while Iran, for merely approaching that threshold, faced punitive strikes. Despite deep-rooted ideological divergences and lingering distrust, many Muslim-majority nations continue to pursue diplomatic engagement with the United States. While Islamic sentiment often shapes their foreign policy postures, geopolitical pragmatism prevails. Notably, Iran’s Supreme Leader has never concealed his antagonism toward Washington and never attempted to mend ties since the 1979 revolution. Post-US air strikes, the Middle East might still witness a protracted period of instability. The Islamic regime, backed by the IRGC, is still under control and back in the saddle. Operation Rising Lion, much like the Ukrainian attacks on Russia, has exposed the presence of Mossad’s robust undercover network. Given the magnitude of the internal sabotage, Iranian authorities have swung into action to identify the moles. Iranians are yearning for freedom and secular democracy. But any external intervention can push the country into further chaos. Pakistan and Iran, both epicentres of terrorism, pose a serious and imminent threat to global peace and stability. The spectre of a nuclear-armed state guided by a jihadi ideology is a geopolitical time bomb that demands urgent attention. While nations like North Korea and Iran face severe Western sanctions, Pakistan, despite its track record, continues to be shielded for its utility as a strategic ally. This glaring disparity in Western responses raises unsettling questions about the consistency and credibility of global non-proliferation efforts. References https://irandataportal.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/the-most-important-problem-of-the-islamic-world-selected-statements-about-palestine.pdf https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/ganji-khamenei-israel/ https://www.euronews.com/2025/06/12/un-nuclear-watchdog-finds-iran-in-non-compliance-with-nuclear-obligations https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-iaea-sanctions-728b811da537abe942682e13a82ff8bd https://observer.co.uk/news/international/article/the-history-of-now-israel-and-iran https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/iran-israel-conflict-nuclear-strikes-how-secret-friends-turned-bitter-enemies/articleshow/121823591.cms