The renewed tensions between India and Pakistan, once again underscored the volatility of South Asia’s security architecture. As fears of open conflict grew, President Trump’s announcement that his administration had facilitated a ceasefire between the two nuclear-armed neighbours was positioned as a major diplomatic achievement and widely echoed in U.S. media.

Indian officials clarified that the ceasefire announced on May 10 was the result of direct, confidential military-level communication with Pakistan and not a product of American mediation

New Delhi was swift in distancing itself from these claims. Indian officials clarified that the ceasefire announced on May 10 was the result of direct, confidential military-level communication with Pakistan and not a product of American mediation. While acknowledging that the U.S. had remained engaged diplomatically behind the scenes, Indian statements firmly rejected any formal third-party intervention. This divergence in narrative has refocused attention on Washington’s role, and more critically, on the motives underpinning its engagement in South Asia.

Reports confirm that U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance were in active contact with leaders in Islamabad and New Delhi during the escalation. These exchanges were aimed at urging restraint and encouraging dialogue. President Trump subsequently presented the ceasefire as evidence of successful American diplomacy. This framing raised eyebrows, particularly given India’s longstanding policy of opposing third-party mediation on issues relating to Pakistan, especially Kashmir.

Islamabad’s response was measured and statesmanlike, prioritizing de-escalation despite enduring provocations and structural imbalances in the regional security environment

Pakistan’s constructive posture during the crisis, including outreach to both regional and international actors, demonstrated a willingness to avoid military confrontation while keeping open channels for diplomacy. Islamabad’s response was measured and statesmanlike, prioritizing de-escalation despite enduring provocations and structural imbalances in the regional security environment.

In this context, the Trump administration’s attempt to claim credit for the ceasefire appears to serve a dual purpose. On the international stage, it enhances the perception of the U.S. as a crisis manager; domestically, it provides a campaign narrative of strong global leadership. However, such positioning can easily blur the line between diplomatic engagement and political opportunism. While the U.S. did play a role in encouraging calm, presenting this as a unilateral American success overlooks the agency and diplomatic maturity exhibited by Pakistan throughout the episode.

By highlighting its preference for peace through diplomacy, Pakistan has positioned itself as a rational actor committed to avoiding escalation in an increasingly fragile geopolitical climate

India’s resistance to international mediation further complicates the picture. Despite growing military and economic clout, India’s rigid position on Kashmir and reluctance to accept third-party facilitation limits the scope for durable conflict resolution. In contrast, Pakistan’s openness to dialogue, bilateral or multilateral, signals a more flexible and forward-looking approach to regional stability. By highlighting its preference for peace through diplomacy, Pakistan has positioned itself as a rational actor committed to avoiding escalation in an increasingly fragile geopolitical climate.

Another issue that emerges is the inconsistency in American messaging. While senior U.S. officials such as Rubio and Vance engaged quietly and constructively, President Trump’s public assertions took on a more self-congratulatory tone. This contrast undermines the coherence of U.S. diplomacy and casts doubt on the sustainability of its engagement. For South Asian actors, particularly Pakistan, such inconsistency reinforces the need for recalibrating regional expectations of U.S. involvement.

The deeper concern lies in Washington’s overall strategic posture toward South Asia. Its engagement in the region has often been shaped by short-term crisis management rather than long-term vision.

The deeper concern lies in Washington’s overall strategic posture toward South Asia. Its engagement in the region has often been shaped by short-term crisis management rather than long-term vision. Despite the immediacy of the May 2025 ceasefire, the structural causes of instability remain unaddressed. The unresolved status of Jammu and Kashmir, persistent mistrust, and asymmetric power dynamics between India and Pakistan continue to drive periodic escalations.

If the United States seeks to play a meaningful role in the region, it must move beyond episodic interventions and invest in a more sustained, equitable, and principled policy framework. That includes recognizing the legitimacy of Pakistan’s security concerns and aspirations for a peaceful neighbourhood. It also demands that Washington adopt a more balanced tone when engaging with both partners, avoiding undue partisanship and rhetorical overreach.

Pakistan’s diplomatic conduct during the standoff deserves recognition, not merely as a counterpoint to India’s assertiveness, but as a model for responsible regional behaviour

In retrospect, the ceasefire may have prevented another major crisis, but it also revealed the fragility of peace in South Asia. Pakistan’s diplomatic conduct during the standoff deserves recognition, not merely as a counterpoint to India’s assertiveness, but as a model for responsible regional behaviour. The Trump administration’s role, while not insignificant, must be situated within this broader context and stripped of electoral theatrics.

Ultimately, durable peace in South Asia will require not just external encouragement but genuine political will from regional actors. Pakistan has demonstrated that willingness. What remains to be seen is whether others, including the United States, are prepared to engage with equal sincerity, consistency, and respect for regional realities.

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.