he dust is still settling following the recent military exchanges between India and Pakistan. Analysts from all over the world are keenly observing and analysing its development, escalation and repercussions for the region and beyond. There is an opportunity once again to expose the precarious nature of peace in South Asia and to invite the great powers, especially the United States, to mediate. President Trump has repeatedly said that he is interested in bringing India and Pakistan to the table to discuss and resolve all outstanding issues in South Asia, including Kashmir.

At the heart of the Kashmir issue there are three interrelated facts. One, the Kashmir region occupies a position of exceptional strategic significance for India, Pakistan and China – three nuclear-armed states with long-standing overlapping territorial claims. Its location affords access to vital mountain passes and transit routes into Central Asia and western China, enhancing its value as a conduit for regional influence and military maneuvers. Kashmir is also the birthplace of the Indus River system, the critical water source for both India and Pakistan, thereby imbuing the region with immense hydrological importance. Control over these headwaters can shape the implementation of the Indus Waters Treaty. The abundant hydropower potential represents a key energy resource that both countries are eager to harness for economic and strategic gain. The region’s importance has increased recently due to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.

Two, Pakistan and India (as well as China) have exclusive claims over the territory. The intractability of the Kashmir dispute is deeply rooted in the exclusive and irreconcilable territorial claims asserted by both India and Pakistan, which leaves little room for compromise or accommodation. India maintains that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral and inalienable part of its sovereign territory, a position enshrined in its constitution and reinforced by the 1947 Instrument of Accession. Pakistan contends that the region’s Muslim-majority demographic composition justifies its accession to Pakistan, in line with the logic of Partition.

Three, Pakistan’s position in the Kashmir dispute has always been one of dissatisfaction with the territorial status quo and its active pursuit of altering it by asserting sovereign claim over Indian-occupied Kashmir. While India too has asserted its claim over Azad Jammu and Kashmir, it was only in the aftermath of the post-9/11 global reordering that New Delhi began pressing for the integration of Azad Kashmir. Pakistan has sought to internationalise the issue by bringing it before the United Nations Security Council and seeking a plebiscite under UN auspices. However, in 1972 it entered into the Simla Agreement, thereby consenting to a bilateral framework for resolving the Kashmir issue. Since then, India has consistently rebuffed Pakistani attempts to elevate the dispute to international platforms. The Lahore Declaration of February 1999 reaffirmed the bilateral framework, with both states pledging to uphold the Simla Agreement. The localised, low-intensity conflict between Kashmiri insurgents and Indian security forces, has culminated in the death of more than 6,500 Indian military personnel and inflicted heavy casualties on the Kashmiri population. Pakistan has also sought third-party mediations from the great powers.

The 1965 war was followed by Soviet mediation. The 1999 Kargil War ended through the US mediation. The recent escalation has also ended through a US intervention. Pakistan has argued that since the two countries do not agree on the basic understanding of the conflict, it is better to let other countries, particularly the great powers, play a role in its resolution. India, however, denies any such role. New Delhi insists that it does not have to let any international mediator, whether global (such as the United Nations secretary general) or foreign (such as the president of the United States), to facilitate or dictate the conclusive resolution of its disputes. New Delhi is apparently afraid that consenting to mediation on Kashmir could embolden other separatist movements to similarly seek international mediation, if not intervention.

President Trump has to work within these limits. While India has said it is least interested in third party mediation, President Trump has several tools in his policy arsenal to persuade New Delhi to revise its position. Being the world’s most influential power with sustained ties to both countries, Washington is well-positioned to act as a credible interlocutor. The United States has previously played an essential role in de-escalating South Asian conflicts, most notably during the Kargil War. This precedent not only demonstrates its capacity to mediate but also underlines the importance of American involvement in maintaining regional stability. Given the high stakes – including the possibility of a nuclear war, the rise of violent extremism and the potential collapse of regional diplomatic frameworks – continued US disengagement may not be prudent or sustainable.

India has long argued that Kashmir is a bilateral issue of lesser significance than its economic, political and strategic relations with leading powers of the world, including the United States. However, President Trump has repeatedly talked about resolving the conflict as an international dispute. The fact is that the Kashmir dispute is no longer a bilateral concern limited to India and Pakistan; rather, it has evolved into a geopolitical flashpoint involving China, the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and transnational jihadist networks. The involvement of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which runs through Gilgit-Baltistan, also claimed by India, has raised Kashmir’s strategic significance and increased the probability of a regional confrontation. The United States can use its diplomatic capital not by trying to impose a solution, but by facilitating a structured dialogue mechanism that includes security guarantees, confidence-building measures and a multilateral diplomatic track that accounts for regional complexities.

In the latest episode, President Trump blatantly used US political and economic leverage against India to bring about a ceasefire. His threat to halt trade if India did not stop violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty showed that the United States was serious. Pakistan has always welcomed US mediation.

In practical terms, Pakistan could gain continued economic assistance, favourable-tariff trade access and military cooperation. US can offer India a higher-level strategic partnership, particularly in the Indo-Pacific and technological development. A peaceful settlement of Kashmir issue, to the satisfaction of Pakistan and China, could open the door for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council for India. The United States can assure India that the facilitation will not amount to third-party arbitration.

President Trump’s foreign policy initiatives, often unconventional, have been marked by a consistent emphasis on conflict resolution through bold, transactional diplomacy. He approaches international disputes not through some traditional ideological frameworks, but through a pragmatic calculus of cost, opportunity and legacy. This orientation has been evident in his administration’s efforts to broker the Abraham Accords as a series of landmark agreements between Israel and several Arab states. These accords, once considered inconceivable, underscore Trump’s willingness to challenge long-standing geopolitical orthodoxies in pursuit of strategic breakthroughs. He has also sought to position himself as a proactive agent of global peacemaking. His repeated assertions to mediate the Russia-Ukraine war – albeit unfulfilled – reflect this broad narrative of peace, trade and prosperity.

Despite significant reductions in aid to Africa, his administration has signaled interest in addressing protracted conflicts in Congo and Rwanda. He has also authorised diplomatic engagement with Iran to renegotiate the parameters of its nuclear programme. These interventions reveal a pattern of opportunistic yet resolute engagement with some of the most intractable international disputes. Pakistan can position the Kashmir dispute as a potential arena for Trump’s diplomatic intervention, appealing to his legacy-oriented worldview and his demonstrated interest in brokering historic deals. Unlike traditional multilateral forums that have failed to yield substantive outcomes on Kashmir, Trump’s personalist approach to diplomacy may provide an unconventional route toward internationalising the issue. By framing Kashmir not merely as a bilateral or regional dispute but as a nuclear flashpoint with implications for global security, Islamabad can emphasise the urgency and moral imperative of third-party facilitation.

Pakistan must underscore how a peaceful resolution in Kashmir aligns with Trump’s broad geopolitical objectives. It can present the dispute as a strategic liability in South Asia that hampers regional trade, undermines counterterrorism cooperation and denies prosperous future to more than a billion people living under poverty in the region. Islamabad’s willingness to engage in good-faith negotiations, in a stark contrast with India’s rigid insistence on bilateralism, will require offering verifiable concessions. Pakistan can establish its credibility and draw Washington into a constructive mediatory role. This can lead to a win-win solution provided that New Delhi too is willing to take a prudent approach in a farsighted manner.

The United States, as well as Pakistan and India, must understand that effective mediation in the Kashmir dispute does not require a public declaration of neutrality. All that is needed is a nuanced balancing act that acknowledges the ground realities, historical grievances and the asymmetry in power and perceptions between the two states. Washington can initiate discreet diplomatic efforts through leadership of Saudi Arabia or United Arab Emirates to bring the parties to the table. Rather than pushing for a final settlement, the immediate objective can be the restoration of dialogue, demilitarisation of volatile zones and a commitment to refrain from hostile propaganda and coercive statecraft. Only through sustained engagement, calibrated diplomacy and the strategic use of its influence can the United States hope to transform Kashmir from a symbol of confrontation into a platform for regional cooperation.

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 reached at suklashari@gmail.com