Fact check: Wall Street Journal’s Anti-Muslim Spin?- fake Nuclear Narrative

The Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece titled “Iran’s Nuclear Pursuit and the Pakistani Example” by Sadanand Dhume on June 18, 2025, which argues that the U.S., Israel, and India made a significant error by allowing Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons and cautions against repeating this with Iran’s nuclear ambitions (American Enterprise Institute). The article draws parallels between Pakistan’s nuclear program and the potential dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran, suggesting that Israel’s potential strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities would benefit global security.

Key Claims and Analysis

1. Pakistan’s Nuclear Program as a Sovereign Defense Mechanism

Claim: The article states that the U.S., Israel, and India “blundered” by allowing Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons, implying it was a preventable mistake with negative global consequences.

Fact-Check: Pakistan’s nuclear program, initiated in the 1970s under Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was a strategic response to India’s nuclear test in 1974, codenamed “Smiling Buddha.” Pakistan conducted its own nuclear tests in May 1998, shortly after India’s tests, to establish a credible deterrent (Wikipedia: Nuclear program of Pakistan). From Pakistan’s perspective, its nuclear arsenal is a manifestation of its commitment to sovereignty, ensuring defense against a militarily stronger neighbor. The article’s framing of Pakistan’s nuclear acquisition as a “blunder” overlooks this context, presenting a one-sided view that ignores the regional security dynamics driving Pakistan’s program. Nuclear deterrence has arguably prevented large-scale conflicts between India and Pakistan, as seen in the limited scope of the 1999 Kargil War, where mutual nuclear capabilities restrained escalation.

Bias/Propaganda: By labeling Pakistan’s nuclear program a mistake without acknowledging its defensive rationale, the article risks oversimplifying a complex geopolitical issue. This framing aligns with narratives that portray Pakistan as a security risk, potentially serving to justify aggressive policies toward other nations like Iran.

2. Biased Terminology: The “Islamic Bomb” Label

Claim: The article refers to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon as the “so-called Islamic bomb,” suggesting a religious motivation behind its development.

Fact-Check: The term “Islamic bomb” is a controversial label sometimes used to describe Pakistan’s nuclear weapon, implying it could serve a broader religious or pan-Islamic agenda. Pakistan’s government and military have consistently maintained that the nuclear program is solely for national defense, aimed at deterring India, not advancing religious objectives (Hindustan Times). In contrast, India’s nuclear program is not labeled with religious terms like “Hindu bomb,” revealing a double standard in terminology. The user’s assertion that such labeling is Islamophobic is supported by the selective application of religious connotations to Pakistan’s program, which can perpetuate stereotypes and misrepresent its strategic purpose.

Bias/Propaganda: The use of “Islamic bomb” introduces a religious frame that is not applied to other nuclear powers, potentially reflecting Islamophobic bias. This terminology risks inflaming tensions and mischaracterizing Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine, which is based on strategic deterrence, not religious ideology.

3. Non-Proliferation Commitments

Claim: The article does not explicitly accuse Pakistan of violating non-proliferation regulations but implies irresponsibility by framing its nuclear acquisition as a global security failure.

Fact-Check: Pakistan is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which recognizes only five nuclear-weapon states: the U.S., Russia, China, France, and the UK. Like India and Israel, Pakistan developed its nuclear capabilities outside the NPT framework, meaning it has not violated any formal commitments under this treaty (Wikipedia: Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). Pakistan is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and adheres to safeguards for its civilian nuclear facilities, but its military nuclear program is not subject to the same international obligations as NPT signatories. The user’s point that Pakistan never committed to nuclear non-proliferation and thus did not violate any regulations is accurate. The article’s implication of wrongdoing lacks specificity and fails to acknowledge Pakistan’s sovereign right to develop nuclear weapons outside the NPT.

Bias/Propaganda: By suggesting Pakistan’s nuclear program was a mistake without clarifying its non-NPT status, the article may mislead readers into assuming Pakistan breached international norms, which is not supported by evidence.

4. Legitimacy of India vs. Pakistan’s Nuclear Programs

Claim: The article implicitly favors India’s nuclear program by focusing on Pakistan’s as a negative example, without critiquing India’s nuclear journey.

Fact-Check: Both India and Pakistan are non-NPT states with nuclear arsenals developed for strategic deterrence. However, the international community, particularly the U.S., has treated them differently. The U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement of 2008 allowed India access to civilian nuclear technology, seen by some as tacit legitimization of its nuclear status (U.S. Department of State). Pakistan has not received similar accommodations, partly due to proliferation concerns linked to A.Q. Khan’s network, which supplied nuclear technology to countries like Iran and North Korea (Times of India). However, India’s nuclear program has also faced criticism, notably for using plutonium from a Canadian-supplied reactor, intended for peaceful purposes, in its 1974 test, which violated bilateral agreements. The article’s failure to address India’s nuclear controversies while highlighting Pakistan’s creates an impression of subjective judgment.

Bias/Propaganda: The selective focus on Pakistan’s nuclear program as a “blunder” without a parallel critique of India’s program reflects a double standard, potentially influenced by geopolitical alignments favoring India.

5. India’s “Bitter Experience” and Regional Dynamics

Claim: The article references India’s “bitter experience” with a nuclear-armed Pakistan, suggesting negative consequences without providing context.

Fact-Check: The article implies that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons have caused strategic difficulties for India, but it does not elaborate on what this “bitter experience” entails. From Pakistan’s perspective, its nuclear arsenal has been a stabilizing factor, deterring India from pursuing aggressive military actions or territorial ambitions. The user argues that India’s frustration stems from an “unfulfilled desire to territorially expand at the cost of the sovereignty of smaller neighbors.” This view aligns with Pakistan’s narrative that its nuclear capability counters India’s regional dominance, as evidenced by the absence of major wars since both nations became nuclear powers. For example, the 1999 Kargil conflict remained limited, partly due to mutual nuclear deterrence. The article’s lack of context about India’s own strategic ambitions or nuclear history presents a one-sided narrative that may elicit sympathy for India without acknowledging Pakistan’s perspective.

Bias/Propaganda: By framing India as a victim of Pakistan’s nuclear program without discussing the broader India-Pakistan rivalry, the article risks oversimplifying the issue and ignoring Pakistan’s defensive motivations.

6. Comparative Analysis of Nuclear Journeys

Claim: The user suggests that India’s nuclear journey involved unethical practices, such as theft and diplomacy, which the article omits for a fair comparison.

Fact-Check: India’s 1974 nuclear test used plutonium from the CIRUS reactor, supplied by Canada for peaceful purposes, leading to accusations of violating bilateral agreements. This sparked international backlash and led Canada to halt nuclear cooperation with India. Similarly, Pakistan’s nuclear program, led by A.Q. Khan, involved acquiring centrifuge technology through illicit networks in Europe, raising proliferation concerns (Times of India). Both nations faced criticism for their methods, yet the article focuses solely on Pakistan’s program as problematic. A balanced analysis would acknowledge the controversies surrounding both countries’ nuclear journeys, including India’s use of foreign-supplied materials and Pakistan’s proliferation activities.

Bias/Propaganda: The omission of India’s nuclear controversies while highlighting Pakistan’s suggests a selective narrative that may align with pro-India biases, avoiding scrutiny of India’s actions.

7. Ethical Journalism and Alternate Perspectives

Claim: The user argues that the Wall Street Journal is morally compelled to provide space for alternate discourse, as ethical journalism demands balanced reporting.

Fact-Check: The article is an opinion piece, which allows for subjective viewpoints, but ethical journalism requires presenting a balanced perspective, especially on contentious issues like nuclear proliferation. The article’s focus on Pakistan as a cautionary tale, without exploring its strategic rationale or India’s parallel nuclear history, risks presenting a skewed narrative. Social media discussions, such as an X post by @_southasiatimes, criticize the article for its “distorted and reductionist narrative” that ignores Pakistan’s security concerns (X post by _southasiatimes). Including Pakistan’s perspective—that its nuclear program is a defensive necessity—would enhance the article’s credibility and align with principles of fair reporting.

Bias/Propaganda: The lack of alternative viewpoints, particularly from Pakistan, limits the article’s objectivity and may reflect a broader editorial bias favoring certain geopolitical narratives.

Comparative Table: India and Pakistan’s Nuclear Programs

Sources: SIPRI, Wikipedia: Nuclear program of India, Wikipedia: Nuclear program of Pakistan

Wall Street Journal’s unethical treatment

The Wall Street Journal article Portrayal of Pakistan’s nuclear program is biased and lacks critical context. By framing Pakistan’s nuclear acquisition as a “blunder” and using terms like “Islamic bomb,” the article risks perpetuating stereotypes and oversimplifying a complex issue. Pakistan’s nuclear program is a strategic necessity for deterrence and sovereignty, developed in response to regional threats, particularly from India. The article’s failure to critique India’s nuclear journey or acknowledge the geopolitical dynamics of South Asia reflects a double standard. Ethical journalism demands a balanced approach, and including Pakistan’s perspective would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issue. While the article’s concerns about Iran are noteworthy, its treatment of Pakistan’s nuclear program is incomplete and potentially misleading, necessitating a more nuanced discourse.

Refrances:

• Iran’s Nuclear Pursuit and the Pakistani Example | American Enterprise Institute

• Israel-Iran conflict: Why Pakistan never helped Iran develop nuclear weapons

• Pakistan denies Iran’s claim of nuclear support against Israel

• Pakistan will nuke Israel if Iran is attacked, claims IRGC general

• Nuclear program of Iran | Wikipedia

• Pakistan threatens nuclear retaliation if Israel attacks Iran

• U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement | U.S. Department of State

• Pakistan urges Muslim unity against Israeli aggression

• X post by _southasiatimes criticizing WSJ article

• Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty | Wikipedia

• Nuclear program of India | Wikipedia

• Nuclear program of Pakistan | Wikipedia