On Thursday, May 1, 2025, Pakistani Minister for Information and Broadcasting Attaullah Tarar appeared on CNN to deliver a carefully calibrated explanation for his government’s public disclosure of intelligence suggesting that India was preparing to launch a military strike on Pakistan within the next 24 to 36 hours. Speaking with urgency and measured authority, Tarar characterized the intelligence as highly credible, sourced directly from operational channels within Pakistan’s defense and intelligence infrastructure. He emphasized that the information had been independently verified and was not conjectural in nature. While refraining from disclosing operational specifics for security reasons, he conveyed the seriousness of the threat and situated it within a broader pattern of intelligence signals pointing to India’s aggressive posture toward Pakistan. He clarified that this was not an isolated incident but part of a growing sequence of provocations and warnings that had emerged in the days following the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir.
That attack, which resulted in the deaths of 26 civilians—including 25 Indian tourists and one Nepali national—was promptly blamed by the Indian government on the Islamic Resistance Front, a militant group widely regarded as an offshoot of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba. In the wake of this accusation, tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors intensified dramatically. India, alleging Pakistani complicity or at least tolerance for militant activity on its soil, undertook a series of retaliatory diplomatic and strategic measures, including the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, the closure of Indian airspace to Pakistani aircraft, and the expulsion of Pakistani diplomats. Pakistan responded in kind, suspending the 1972 Simla Agreement, denying Indian aircraft access to its airspace, and ordering Indian diplomats to leave the country. Simultaneously, nightly exchanges of artillery fire erupted along the Line of Control, with each side accusing the other of initiating hostilities and violating ceasefire agreements.
In this volatile atmosphere, Tarar defended his decision to publicly disclose the intelligence as an act of strategic communication designed to forestall further escalation. The announcement, made at 2:00 a.m. local time, was timed to ensure maximum visibility among global leaders and stakeholders, especially in the West, where political and diplomatic offices would still be active. Tarar insisted that had he not communicated the intelligence precisely at that hour, a critical opportunity to de-escalate through deterrence might have been lost. His position was rooted in the belief that transparency, particularly when backed by credible intelligence, serves not merely as a diplomatic gesture but as an effective strategic tool. By informing the international community of the credible threat, Pakistan was able to shift the burden of scrutiny onto India, raising the stakes for any potential unilateral action by New Delhi.
Tarar’s message was clear: in an increasingly interconnected international security environment, deterrence is no longer defined solely by military readiness but by the speed, clarity, and credibility of a state’s communication strategy. He explained that Pakistan’s proactive disclosure had three key purposes. First, it was designed to signal to India that any planned aggression would not take place in silence and would be met not only with military readiness but with international condemnation. Second, it was a demonstration of Pakistan’s commitment to the norms and responsibilities of global governance, particularly its obligations as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Third, it was an appeal to the global community to engage with the crisis before it spiraled into open conflict between two nuclear powers.
Asked whether the threat of an Indian attack had been mitigated by his disclosure, Tarar replied affirmatively. He stated that while the intelligence remained serious, the act of going public had likely altered India’s strategic calculus. Once a potential aggressor is made aware that its actions are anticipated and exposed to global observation, its incentive to proceed with military escalation is weakened. The public nature of the intelligence made India’s position more precarious diplomatically, thereby creating an additional layer of deterrence.
Tarar elaborated on Pakistan’s broader strategic doctrine by identifying three core pillars of deterrence: military capability, national resolve, and communication. He reiterated that Pakistan’s military is robust, experienced, and historically defensive in posture. The country, he asserted, has never initiated aggression but has consistently acted in self-defense, with the protection of national sovereignty as its central objective. This defensive orientation, however, does not imply weakness. On the contrary, Tarar portrayed Pakistan’s armed forces as vigilant and capable, fully prepared to respond to any provocation.
The second pillar of deterrence, according to Tarar, is the resolve of the Pakistani people and their institutions. He framed this resolve not as abstract nationalism but as a living reality reflected in the country’s historical resilience and political will. In times of external pressure, Pakistan has demonstrated unity and determination, attributes which, in Tarar’s view, send a powerful message to potential adversaries that the nation will not capitulate under threat.
The third and most dynamic element of deterrence, in Tarar’s formulation, is communication. In an era where perception and narrative can influence geopolitical outcomes as much as physical deployments, the strategic use of information has become indispensable. Communication, he argued, serves a dual purpose: it informs the international community—potentially triggering mediation, diplomatic interventions, or at least elevated vigilance—and it reassures the domestic population, maintaining morale and a sense of preparedness. By publicly disclosing credible threats, Pakistan was not only protecting its own citizens but inviting a broader conversation about regional security dynamics. Tarar’s communication strategy aimed to dismantle the binary between silence and aggression by placing diplomacy and discourse at the center of conflict prevention.
This comprehensive strategy came against the backdrop of escalating bilateral hostility and growing international concern. The United States, via Secretary of State Marco Rubio, expressed sorrow over the Pahalgam attack and reaffirmed its solidarity with India in combating terrorism, while simultaneously urging both India and Pakistan to de-escalate and open lines of communication. Rubio’s statement struck a balance between condemnation of terrorism and support for regional dialogue. The United Nations also weighed in, offering to mediate and emphasizing the potentially catastrophic consequences of war between two nuclear-armed states.
Tarar’s remarks on CNN were thus designed to do more than just issue a warning; they were a bid to reposition Pakistan as an actor committed to de-escalation through strategic foresight and international engagement. By disclosing intelligence rather than acting covertly or retaliating in kind, Pakistan sought to place itself within the moral and legal frameworks of international diplomacy. Tarar’s intervention was also a subtle critique of India’s behavior, suggesting that New Delhi’s policies and rhetoric had become increasingly belligerent in response to terrorist incidents whose origins, Pakistan contended, remained unproven in a court of international law.
The broader implication of Tarar’s appearance was to recast Pakistan’s role in the crisis—not as a belligerent nation harboring militants, but as a sovereign state navigating a volatile security environment through proactive, transparent, and responsible conduct. His remarks were a calculated attempt to align Pakistan with the principles of preventive diplomacy and strategic communication, rather than reactionary militarism. By doing so, Tarar projected an image of Pakistan as a mature, self-aware actor in a dangerous regional theater, seeking to avoid catastrophe not through passivity but through deliberate, strategic engagement.
Tarar’s presentation on CNN illustrated a distinct theory of deterrence for the 21st century—one where credible intelligence, timely disclosure, and global communication are as central to national defense as tanks and missiles. In this model, transparency is not vulnerability but strength, and narrative control becomes an instrument of strategic stability. Words, when deployed with precision and intent, can become a first line of defense.
Gros News 
Leave a comment