n Saturday May 10, United States President Donald Trump announced on his social media account: “After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE. Congratulations to both Countries on using Common Sense and Great Intelligence.” This announcement came following a major escalation of tensions, exchange of fire and the first large-scale air war between the two nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan.

The next day, President Trump went one step further. He wrote: “It was time to stop the current aggression that could have led to the death and destruction of so many and so much. Millions of good and innocent people could have died!... I am going to increase trade, substantially, with both of these great nations. Additionally, I will work with you both to see if, after a “thousand years,” a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir.”

On May 9, India attacked Pakistan at several places in the Punjab and Azad Kashmir. The attacks killed dozens of civilians including women and children. It was reported that more than 40 Pakistani aircraft – mostly JF-17 Thunders and J10Cs – responded to more than 70 aircraft of India to register what is now being called a classic case study of modern air warfare wherein more than 100 aircraft fought for over an hour. When the dust settled, India had lost five aircraft including three of its French-made Rafael jets, a MIG-29 fighter, an SU-30 fighter and several Israel-made Heron drones.

Pakistan vowed to respond to this blatant violation of its sovereignty. The next night, India attacked three Pakistani airbases. The Pakistan Air Force responded by attacking 26 sites, including an S-400 air-defense system and a BrahMos missile depot. An India Today report said that at least four airbases - Udhampur, Pathankot, Adampur and Bhuj - had been destroyed.

Simultaneously, the two countries exchanged a barrage of drones and unarmed aircraft systems (UASs) hitting at several places of strategic importance. The escalation had now reached an unprecedented level. Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif convened the National Command Authority meeting in the early hours of May 10. This development unnerved several countries, including the United States. Two days ago, Vice President JD Vance had stated that Pakistan-India conflict was “none of our business.” CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times and Wall Street Journal reported that the United States had to revise its perception of the rapidly-escalating conflict in the light of “alarming intelligence reports” highlighting that things could quickly get “out of control.” Given the fact that the National Command Authority controls decision making on national interests, including nuclear assets and doctrine, it was evident that Pakistan was ready to announce a nuclear option available to the military leadership should it be attacked again.

After the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, nuclear-armed Soviet Union and the United States signed several agreements such as SALT-I, SALT-II, START-I and START-II to limit the chances of nuclear weapons being used. The nuclear doctrines of declared nuclear-armed countries generally have a high threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. Most countries will use nuclear weapons only if attacked with one. India has a ‘no-first use’ doctrine. Pakistan’s doctrine is different for two reasons. One, Pakistan and India are the only two nuclear-armed enemy neighbours. The disparity in the conventional military power is a serious national security question for Pakistan. For example, as compared to Pakistan’s less than $12 billion defence budget, India spends more than $80 billion per annum on its defence. This gives India huge financial resources to modernise and improve its capabilities, putting Pakistan under severe pressure to find unorthodox strategies to compete against its arch rival. Second, being much smaller in size and population vis-à-vis India, Pakistan faces the threat of complete annihilation in a single nuclear strike. In the wake of a terrorist attack on Indian parliament in 2001 followed by a six-month long stand-off between the two countries, India revised its war plans and announced a Cold Start doctrine proposing rapid and decisive conventional strikes against Pakistan in case of a conflict. Pakistan’s response to it was introduction of tactical nuclear weapons.

Upon receipt of “alarming intelligence” reports, a scramble started in the White House. Secretary of State and interim National Security Advisor Marco Rubio contacted Vice President JD Vance who briefed President Trump about the evolving situation.

Limited to specific battlefield damage, these weapons were designed to be used on Pakistani soil if Indian conventional forces enter Pakistani territory. The introduction of nuclear-capable Nasr or Hatf-9, a solid-fuel tactical ballistic missile with a range of only 60 kilometers, means Pakistan has acquired reliable delivery systems to decimate an aggressor. Pakistan calls this nuclear posture as “the last resort” or “full spectrum” that it will consider using in case of a credible threat to national sovereignty and integrity.

This means that Pakistan’s strategic threshold is lower than some other countries. This is what unnerved the Trump administration. US media has reported that upon receipt of “alarming intelligence” reports, a scramble started in the White House. Secretary of State and interim National Security Advisor Marco Rubio contacted Vice President JD Vance who then briefed President Trump about the evolving situation. After receiving his approval, the vice president talked to Prime Minister Modi and pressed him to contact Pakistani authorities to de-escalate the situation. After the Indian prime minister had agreed, Secretary of State Marco Rubio talked to Gen Asim Munir, the Pakistani army chief. After an agreement was reached, President Trump made the announcement.

The US intervention deprived India of several strategic and political advantages. One, decoupling of India and Pakistan has ended. For over three decades, India had tried to de-hyphenate itself from Pakistan. The global discourse about the rise of new economies and an increasing disparity in the flow of global trade and finance between India and Pakistan had helped New Delhi emerge as a new partner of the West to counter the emerging Chinese superpower. Simultaneously, the use of Af-Pak term by the United States policymakers and think tanks relegated Pakistan by associating it more with Afghanistan, thus highlighting its internal security challenges including terrorism. The state-level visits of Western leaders to India only indicated an acceptance of this trend. The recent clash, however, has brought the Indo-Pak terminology back into the discourse. This is a psychological setback for New Delhi.

Two, Indian aspirations of global recognition as regional hegemon have been shattered. Its air force has been shown to be unable to overcome. This has exposed the hollowness of the Indian claims of strategic power status. Though the clash is still being analysed, the Western world, especially the United States, has realized that India is still a low-rank military power and will require time and effort to come up to the standards required for global responsibilities and recognition. India and Pakistan are considered no match in conventional military power, Pakistan’s success lies in its successful and effective “push back.” While Pakistan lacks the “attack-first” capacity, it has demonstrated credible “defensive-offence” power to deny Indian war objectives. This also means that India needs to invest more in technology and training to achieve its objectives. The destruction of three 4.5 generation Rafael aircraft at the hands of Chinese J10Cs is a strategic concern since this is the first time that Chinese weapon technology has been tested in a battle situation.

The United States has already announced plans to sell fifth generation F-35 aircraft to India. Pakistan, China and Turkey are developing their own fifth generation KAAN aircraft. Following its maiden flight in February 2024, subsequent test flights have validated its basic performance indicators. Meanwhile, Pakistan can readily acquire J-20 and J-35 aircraft from China. Given the recent clash, the United States might have to rethink its sale of F-35 to India.

Three, Kashmir, has once again emerged as an international flash point. Since Simla Agreement (1972), India has insisted that it is a bilateral issue. More recently, after abrogating its special status, India has declared Kashmir as an internal problem. These efforts, however, have not been successful. On July 22, 2019, in a meeting with the-then prime minister Imran Khan, President Trump expressed his willingness to help India and Pakistan resolve this issue. On August 5 that year, India revoked the special status of Kashmir. A lack of significant response from the West against unprecedented human rights violations in Kashmir encouraged New Delhi to assure itself that the issue had been forgotten. However, the recent clash has renewed the global significance of Kashmir as a dispute between two nuclear-armed countries.

Four, Pakistan has regained its confidence, eroded on account of its internal security challenges and the political stalemate. Over the years, problems on its western border and the security situation in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have created a negative image. India had sought to exploit this by abetting separatists in Balochistan and the Tehreek Taliban Pakistan in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The demonstrated ability to hold India back militarily is therefore reassuring. However, the stalemate in domestic politics remains to be resolved. Pakistan also needs multi-sectoral structural reforms to produce an indigenous model of sustainable development.

The writer is a professor of government at Houston Community College, USA. He recently published his book The Rise of the Semi-Core: China, India, and Pakistan in the World-System. He can be approached at suklashari@gmail.com.