India and Pakistan have already witnessed the incident unfold: a series of escalating tit-for-tat steps that put South Asia in the brink of total war. And then there is a de-escalation.
The most recent crises, where the large contours of that design have been played out, saw the most recent incident occur with the news of a stalemate on May 10, 2025.
The conflict, which started on April 22 with a fatal attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir and resulted in the deaths of 26 people, is important in another way. It involved primary weapon markets targeting places inside both provinces and the use of advanced missile techniques and drones by the two nuclear rivals for the first time.
As a researcher of radioactive conflicts, particularly between India and Pakistan, I’ve long been concerned that the proliferation of sophisticated martial and digital technologies, as well as the erosion of global sovereignty norms, and the reduced US interest and influence in the area, have significantly increased the risk of a quick and uncontrolled escalation in South Asia.
Both nations ‘ local political transitions have been a result of these changes. The pro-Hindu patriotism of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has heightened social tensions in the country.
General Syed Asim Munir, Pakistan’s powerful army commander, has endorsed the” two-nation theory,” which states that India is home to Hindus and Pakistan is a home to Muslims.
This spiritual framing was also evident in the names of the two nations ‘ military campaigns. It is” Operation Sindoor” for India, a nod to the women of the Kashmir assault and a nod to the dark scarlet worn by married Hindu people.
Pakistan called its counter-operation” Bunyan-un-Marsoos” – an Arabic word from the Quran indicating” a solid framework”.
Washington’s position
Tens of thousands of lives have been lost in the India-Pakistan conflict in various warfare in 1947-48, 1965, and 1971. But since the late 1990s, whenever India and Pakistan approached the brink of war, a familiar de-escalation handbook unfolded: powerful politics, usually led by the United States, may help defuse conflicts.
President Bill Clinton’s strong intervention in 1999 put an end to the Kargil issue, a limited war sparked by Bangladeshi forces entering Indian-administered Kashmir, by pressing Pakistan for a removal.
US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage engaged in intensive shuttle politics between Islamabad and New Delhi after the 2001 attack by terrorists allegedly linked to Pakistan-based organizations Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.
And after the 2008 Mumbai episodes, which saw 166 people killed by terrorists linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, swift and high-level American diplomatic engagement helped control India’s response and reduced the risk of an escalating issue.
In the wake of a suicide bombing in Pulwama, Kashmir that left 40 American security personnel dead, American political pressure helped to halt hostilities as late as 2019 during the Balakot issue.
In his autobiography, former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo after wrote,” I do not believe the world fully understands how near the India-Pakistan rivalry came to spill over into a nuclear conflagration in February 2019.”
A political hole?
Washington as a mediator made sense because it had control and a strong interest.
The US and Pakistan forged a nearby ally during the Cold War to combat India’s ties to the Soviet Union. And after the 9/11 evil problems, the US poured tens of billions of dollars in military aid into Pakistan as a front partner in the “war on terror”.
Beginning in the early 2000s, the US also began cultivating India as a proper mate.
A steadfast Pakistan played a vital role in the US’s conflict there, and a pleasant India served as China’s strategic counterbalance. And this gave the US both the desire and reliability to work as an effective negotiator during times of India-Pakistan problems.
Nevertheless, America’s political focus has shifted considerably away from South Asia as of today. The Cold War ended, but the pace quickly picked up after the US’s departure from Afghanistan in 2021. More just, the war in Ukraine and the Middle East have consumed Washington’s political work.
Since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, there haven’t been any diplomatic appointments for the US, which must have hampered any facilitating responsibilities.
In contrast to Trump’s claim that the May 10 peace came after a “long day of talks mediated by the United States,” statements from India and Pakistan appeared to underplay US involvement, instead focusing on the direct bilateral character of the talks.
Does it occur that Washington’s function as a mediator between Pakistan and India has been diminished, it is not immediately clear who, if anyone, may fill the void.
Due to its close ties with Pakistan and previous border disputes with India, China, which has been trying to establish a mediatorship somewhere, is not seen as natural. During the most recent issue, other local powers like Iran and Saudi Arabia attempted to intervene, but both failed to have the same level of power as the US or China.
This lack of physical counseling is never, of course, a problem in itself. Historiographically, foreign interference, especially US support for Pakistan during the Cold War, frequently exacerbated relationships in South Asia by fostering military tensions and strengthening hard jobs.
However, the past has shown that additional pressure, particularly from Washington, can be successful.
Breaking the conventions
The most recent escalation occurred in the context of a different strong: the deterioration of international standards since the Cold War ended and its accelerating growth after 2001.
Through techniques like preemptive strikes against sovereign states, targeted aircraft killings, and “enhanced investigation techniques” of detainees that some constitutional scholars label as torture, America’s “war on terror” fundamentally challenged global legal frameworks.
More recently, Israel’s operations in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria have drawn widespread criticism for violations of international humanitarian law – but have resulted in limited consequences.
In short, geopolitical norms have ebbed away, and military actions that were once deemed red lines are being crossed with little accountability.
This environment offers both opportunity and risk for India and Pakistan. Both can point to other actions that have been taken to support assertive actions that, in previous years, would have been seen as being too far, such as attacks on places of worship and sovereignty violations.
Multi-domain warfare
However, I believe the most recent crisis ‘ multi-domain nature is what truly distinguished it from those of the past. As it did for the first five decades of the Kashmir conflict, the conflict has shifted beyond traditional military exchanges along the line of control.
Both countries largely respected the line of control as a de facto boundary for military operations until the 2019 crisis. Since then, there has been a risky trend: first, cross-border airstrikes into each other’s territory, then a conflict that spans the conventional military, cyber, and information spheres at once.
Reports indicate Chinese-made Pakistani J-10 fighter jets shot down multiple Indian aircraft, including advanced French Rafale jets. This conflict between Chinese and Western weapons adds another layer of great-power competition to the crisis by acting as a proxy test for rival global military technologies.
In addition, the use of loitering drones designed to attack radar systems represents a significant increase in the technological sophistication of cross-border attacks in comparison to earlier times.
The conflict has also expanded dramatically into the cyber domain. Reports from Pakistani hackers who claim to be the” Pakistan Cyber Force” breach several Indian defense institutions, potentially compromising personnel information and login credentials.
In addition, social media and a new right-wing media in India have developed into a significant battlefront. Ultranationalist voices in India incited violence against Muslims and Kashmiris, in Pakistan, anti-India rhetoric similarly intensified online.
Cooler voices are prevailing for the time being.
These shifts have led to a number of escalation paths that conventional crisis management strategies weren’t designed to address.
Particularly concerning is the nuclear dimension. Pakistan has developed short-range tactical nuclear weapons designed to counteract Indian conventional advantages. Its nuclear doctrine states that it will use nuclear weapons if its existence is threatened. In addition, India has informally toned down its previous no-first-use stance, leaving its operational doctrine ambiguous.
As the ceasefire announcement indicates, mediating voices appear to have prevailed this time around. However, this most recent conflict turned out to be a dangerous turning point due to eroding norms, lessening great power diplomacy, and the development of multi-domain warfare.
What transpires next will reveal a lot about how nuclear rivals can control the conflict spiral in this dangerous new environment.
Farah N Jan is senior lecturer in international relations, University of Pennsylvania
This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the article’s introduction.