By IndraStra Global Editorial Team
The renewed violence between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, ignited by a terrorist attack on Indian tourists, has plunged South Asia into a perilous crisis. This latest chapter in a decades-long territorial dispute unfolds against a backdrop of global uncertainty, where the United States, once a reliable mediator, appears disinclined to lead. The Trump administration’s restrained response, coupled with shifting geopolitical alignments, underscores a troubling reality: the mechanisms that once tempered such conflicts are weakening. As India and Pakistan exchange strikes and rhetoric, the international community watches anxiously, grappling with the challenge of de-escalation in a fractured world.
The crisis began last month with a terror attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, killing at least six mostly Hindu tourists on April 22, 2025. After a fortnight, India, blaming Pakistan-backed militants, launched missile strikes on alleged terrorist camps in Pakistan-held Kashmir and mainland Pakistan on May 7, 2025. Pakistan, denying it harbors such camps, reported 31 civilian deaths and pledged retaliation. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif declared, “perhaps they thought that we would retreat, but they forgot that … this is a nation of brave people.” Tensions escalated further when Pakistan launched missile and drone attacks on Indian border areas in Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab, prompting Indian air defenses and blackouts in affected regions. Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri stressed a measured response, stating, “the action was restrained; it was directed towards non-civilian, non-military targets; and confined to terrorist camps.” Yet, he warned, “any further action by Pakistan … will be responded to and is being responded to appropriately.”
Kashmir, divided between India, Pakistan, and China since Britain’s partition of the subcontinent in the 1940s, has been a perennial flashpoint. The rivals have fought three wars over the Muslim-majority region, alongside frequent skirmishes. The 1999 Kargil conflict, which raised fears of nuclear war, saw President Bill Clinton intervene to avert disaster. In 2019, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted, “I do not think the world properly knows just how close the India-Pakistan rivalry came to spilling over into a nuclear conflagration.” While both nations have tempered nuclear rhetoric as mature nuclear powers, the risk of miscalculation persists, especially as domestic pressures mount. For India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the tourist attack and the confirmed downing of one Indian jet are political embarrassments, while Pakistan’s leadership faces demands to restore national honor.
Historically, the United States has viewed Kashmir as a conflict worth managing, driven by its strategic importance and nuclear risks. Past administrations, including Trump’s first term, invested diplomatic effort to prevent escalation. Now, however, the U.S. response is subdued. President Trump initially called the violence “a shame,” adding, “I just hope it ends quickly.” He later offered mediation, stating, “I get along with both, I know both very well, and I want to see them work it out. … If I can do anything to help, I will be there.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio has engaged both nations’ leaders, urging de-escalation and dialogue. U.S. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce emphasized, “This should not escalate and communication was fundamentally key that there should be talks, there should not be silence.” Yet, no broader U.S.-led mediation effort has emerged, a stark contrast to past interventions.
This reluctance stems from the Trump administration’s rejection of traditional U.S. foreign policy. Trump prioritizes unilateral economic and military leverage over multilateral coalitions, viewing allies and adversaries through a transactional lens. His diplomatic efforts, such as pressuring Ukraine for rare earth metals or proposing to transform Gaza into “the Riviera of the Middle East,” seek U.S. gains. Kashmir, lacking obvious financial or strategic benefits, fails to capture his attention. As Tim Willasey-Wilsey, a former British diplomat, observed, “We now have a president in the White House who says he doesn’t want to be the policeman of the world.” Trump’s affinity for Modi, a fellow nationalist, may further tilt U.S. sympathies, complicating neutrality. Willasey-Wilsey noted that Trump is “probably more sympathetic to (Indian) Prime Minister (Narendra) Modi than he is to the Pakistanis.”
The U.S.’s shifting relationships with India and Pakistan also shape its stance. Since the Kargil crisis, India has grown closer to Washington as an economic and military power. The tourist attack has garnered sympathy for India, despite global concerns over Modi’s policies toward Muslims in Kashmir. Conversely, U.S. influence over Pakistan has diminished since the Afghanistan withdrawal, as Pakistan aligns with China. Milan Vaishnav of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace remarked, “India is one of the most important strategic partners for the United States, whereas Pakistan’s importance … has really declined.” Pakistan’s economic crisis, reliant on creditors like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, further limits U.S. leverage.
Pakistan’s alleged support for terrorism remains contentious. The U.S. has long urged Pakistan to curb militant groups, with Bruce stating, “In today’s world, that’s a call that we have been making for decades. … The world has rejected the nature of that kind of violence.” Pakistan’s call for an independent investigation into the tourist attack, supported by the U.S., aims to deflect blame. Bruce noted, “We want the perpetrators to be held accountable and are supportive of any efforts to that end.” India, however, insists its strikes were precise, with Misri stating, “No military targets have been selected. Only terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan has been hit.” These conflicting claims—India’s assertion of targeting terrorists versus Pakistan’s civilian casualty reports—hinder diplomatic progress.
Without U.S. leadership, other actors may step in. Qatar, experienced in mediating Israel-Hamas talks, has expressed condolences for the tourist attack and support for resolving India-Pakistan tensions. Its Prime Minister, Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, held calls with both nations’ leaders, signaling potential mediation. India’s press interpreted a call from Qatar’s Emir to Modi as a snub to Pakistan, underscoring regional sensitivities. Willasey-Wilsey suggested Pakistan’s creditors could restrain Islamabad, given its economic woes. Yet, these efforts lack the global authority the U.S. once provided.
The crisis reflects a broader shift in global dynamics. India and Pakistan, backed by rival superpowers—India by the U.S., Pakistan by China—face fewer external checks. Domestic pressures fuel escalation: Modi must counter perceptions of weakness, while Pakistan’s leadership responds to India’s strikes. Vaishnav suggested that after Pakistan retaliates, “both sides can save face and find an exit ramp,” but this assumes mutual restraint not yet evident. Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, after speaking with Rubio, emphasized a “targeted and measured response to cross-border terrorism” and vowed to “firmly counter any attempts at escalation.” Sharif’s defiant rhetoric signals Pakistan’s resolve.
Past U.S. mediations, like Carter’s Israel-Egypt accords or Clinton’s Yugoslavia efforts, relied on sustained, multilateral diplomacy. The Trump administration, however, shows no such commitment. Its diplomatic forays, led by inexperienced figures like Steve Witkoff, have faltered in Ukraine and Gaza, and claims of progress, such as Houthi restraint in Yemen, remain unverified. In Kashmir, the absence of preparatory diplomacy and Trump’s disinterest in coalition-building limit U.S. engagement. Bruce noted ongoing talks, stating, “the phone calls happened and we are remaining engaged with both governments at multiple levels,” but these efforts lack depth.
The Kashmir crisis tests the world’s ability to manage conflicts without a dominant mediator. The U.S.’s retreat from global leadership, combined with a multipolar world, leaves a void. Regional players like Qatar may help, but their influence is limited. The international community, witnessing blackouts and sirens in Jammu, faces a stark challenge: preventing escalation in a nuclear-armed region. For now, hope rests on fragile dialogue between New Delhi and Islamabad, urged by a distracted Washington and a concerned but fragmented world. The alternative—a wider conflict—remains a haunting possibility.
Apple News, Google News, Feedly, Flipboard, and WhatsApp Channel
