The sudden and intense clash between India and Pakistan following the terrorist Incident in Pahalgam made the two nuclear-capable countries appear on the brink of a dangerous escalation. India blamed Pakistan for the attack that caused the death of 26 people in India-illegally controlled Kashmir whilst Pakistan denied any involvement. This was followed by a chain of military clashes, beginning with missile strikes, attacks on the air bases, and quiet under the table threats of nuclear tit-for-tat. Yet despite the bellicose rhetoric and war, a surprisingly rapid ceasefire was negotiated, primarily due to diplomatic efforts from the U.S.

India bombarded Pakistani soil, targeting alleged militant camps, sparking military retaliation.

This situation got worse on 7 May, Wednesday with India bombarding the Pakistani soil, claiming that the targets were militant camps involved in cross border terror. This was followed on Friday by a high level of hostility as India attacked 3 air bases in Pakistan including the Nur Khan Air Base in Rawalpindi a place of strategic importance being the location of the headquarters of the Pakistan military, and the nuclear command as well.

This strike sparked off reports that Pakistani Prime Minister, Shahbaz Sharif had held a National Command Authority (NCA) meeting, which is not only responsible for the decisions regarding nuclear but also responsible for the overall security and safety framework of the country Although Pakistan denied convening the meeting, the suspicion led to fear in the world. The risk of nuclear exchange came to be too pressing to ignore, and impelled the world powers to make swift actions.

Understanding catastrophic risk of further escalation, the Trump administration moved very quickly. The U.S. has a history of facilitating the resolution of the India-Pakistan crises with some of the incidences including during Kargil War (1999), 2001 Parliament attack, as well as the Pulwama attack (2019). In this case, President Trump put Secretary of the State Marco Rubio to deal with Pakistani administrators while Vice President JD Vance dealt with the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi directly.

Chances are, only the U.S could have served as a third party between the two nations who were not willing to make concession to each other in solving the conflict. China, being a close ally to Pakistan would not be palatable to India over border conflicts and strategic rivalry. The geopolitical strength was absent for Gulf States and the international bodies such as the United Nations would be too slow to come to their rescue. Therefore, the U.S. acted as a neutral power broker with its diplomatic heft and enticing relationships with the two countries.

Pakistan’s suspected NCA meeting raised global fears of nuclear escalation.

First amongst risk was the danger of nuclear escalation among two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan themselves, a limited conventional war ran the threat of escalation to a horrendous exchange and demanded immediate international attention. The economic vulnerability also played an important role. India with its being the fastest growing major economy in South Asia was to suffer significant loss of foreign investment and economic growth if the war dragged on.

Besides, the global goals of India called for unwavering image. Its place in the G20, QUAD, and BRICS require a posture of responsibility and restraint. To escalate the conflict would have damaged this image and put off critical international partners. Lastly, with its readiness for a ceasefire, India succeeded in casting itself as a confident diplomatic player, which is willing to stand against military force whenever it was needed, but simultaneously strives to contribute to regional peace and overall stability in the world

The cost of a longer war between the two South Asian nuclear rivals is unsustainable. Pakistan reacted strongly to India and managed to surprise the world with its strikes.  Moreover, Pakistan Air Force shocked everybody when they attacked Indian airbases and shot down Rafale jets.

Though Pakistan`s action has made it look more powerful, its leaders should keep emphasizing deterrence and sovereignty. Nevertheless, the severe instability in the country doesn’t allow it to hold or worsen major conflicts for long. With the inflation rate spiraling, a persistent balance of payment crises, an economy that is basically dependent on negotiations with IMF and foreign aid, military conflict will aggravate existing vulnerabilities and threaten a deeper economic meltdown. Furthermore, even with the position of the military forces of Pakistan being strong and professional, a broad gap from conventional capabilities compared to India is an issue.

The U.S. swiftly intervened with direct diplomacy through Secretary Rubio and Vice President Vance.

By agreeing to dialogue mediated by the U.S, Pakistan not only avoided the escalating costs of conflict but also took the opportunity to present itself as a rational and responsible player, potentially restoring its international credibility. Moreover, agreeing to a ceasefire on the call of the U.S. helped both countries to avoid a war from further escalation.

Ultimately, for India, the choice to withdraw was in line with its international ambitions and economic objectives. For Pakistan, the ceasefire represented a means to prevent economic and diplomatic collapse. While both nations have declared strategic victories, while the truth is that neither India nor Pakistan could afford to engage in warfare.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.