Former CIA Officer Warns: Pakistan Cannot Win a Conventional War Against India

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou has said that Pakistan must come to a policy conclusion that there is nothing to gain from fighting with India, emphasizing that Islamabad would lose any conventional war. Speaking in an interview with ANI, Kiriakou—who served 15 years with the CIA and headed its counterterrorism operations in Pakistan—shared his perspective on Pakistan’s military strategy, its nuclear program, and regional tensions with India.

Kiriakou’s comments come as India continues to maintain a firm policy against cross-border terrorism, demonstrated through surgical strikes in 2016, the Balakot airstrikes in 2019, and Operation Sindoor in May 2025, conducted after the Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 civilians. The operation targeted terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK), signaling India’s determination to respond to any form of terrorism decisively.

Recalling his time in Pakistan in the early 2000s, Kiriakou said, “When I was stationed in Pakistan in 2002, I was told unofficially that the Pentagon controlled the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, and that President Pervez Musharraf had handed control to the United States.” Over time, however, Pakistan’s military leadership has denied this claim, insisting that control of the nuclear weapons remains with its own generals.

When asked whether this information was ever shared with India, Kiriakou expressed doubt. “I don’t think the Americans ever told India that,” he said, noting that U.S. officials were primarily focused on avoiding escalation. “The State Department told both sides—if there’s a fight, keep it short and non-nuclear. Because once nuclear weapons are used, it changes everything.”

Kiriakou stated clearly that there is no benefit for Pakistan in provoking India. “Nothing good will come out of a war between India and Pakistan,” he said. “The Pakistanis will lose. And I’m not talking about nuclear weapons—just in a conventional war. India’s military and economic advantages are clear.”

His observations align with a broader view among analysts that Pakistan’s continued reliance on terrorism and nuclear posturing has damaged its international standing. India, meanwhile, has focused on building military strength and intelligence-driven counterterrorism capabilities, ensuring quick and targeted responses to attacks.

Kiriakou also discussed Abdul Qadeer Khan (AQ Khan), known for developing Pakistan’s nuclear program and for his role in nuclear technology smuggling. “If we had taken the Israeli approach, we would have just killed him,” Kiriakou said. “We knew where he lived and what his routine was. But Saudi Arabia intervened, asking us to leave him alone because they were working with him. That was a mistake by the U.S. government.”

AQ Khan’s proliferation network had provided sensitive technology to Iran, North Korea, and Libya, raising serious global concerns about nuclear security. Despite international pressure, Khan remained protected in Pakistan for years, highlighting the complex nature of its nuclear establishment.

Kiriakou, who spent the latter part of his CIA career in counterterrorism, became known in 2007 for revealing details of the CIA’s interrogation practices. Although he later faced legal action and served 23 months in prison, he said he had no regrets about his decision to speak publicly.

In his latest remarks, Kiriakou reiterated that Pakistan’s confrontational approach offers no advantage and urged it to focus on stability and development instead. With India’s defense modernization and expanding global partnerships, he said, Pakistan would benefit more from improving diplomatic and economic relations than from maintaining hostility.

His conclusion was straightforward: “There’s nothing positive for Pakistan in fighting India. In a conventional conflict, they will lose. It’s that simple.”