When war broke out between India and Pakistan following a deadly terrorist attack on Hindu-Indian tourists in Kashmir on April 22, both US President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance were indifferent to it.
Trump said, “They’ve been fighting for a long time. They’ve been fighting for many, many decades. And centuries, actually, if you think about it. I hope it ends very quickly.” Trump made no mention of a diplomatic intervention despite close America’s close relations with both India and Pakistan.
Vice President Vance, who was in India on April 22 at the time the terrorists struck in Kashmir, told Fox News, “We are not going to get involved in the middle of a war that’s fundamentally none of our business. You know, America can’t tell the Indians to lay down their arms. We can’t tell the Pakistanis to lay down their arms. And so, we’re going to continue to pursue this thing through diplomatic channels.”
US radically changes
But come May 10, days into the war, in which missiles and drones criss-crossed the India-Pakistan border in droves wreaking destruction, the mood in Washington changed radically.
Trump made the initial announcement of a break in fighting over his social media platform, Truth Social, on Saturday morning.
“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 cease-fire,” he said. “Congratulations to both countries on using common sense and great intelligence. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” he added in good measure.
Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar confirmed the news shortly after, via a post on X. He wrote: “Pakistan and India have agreed to a cease-fire with immediate effect. Pakistan has always strived for peace and security in the region, without compromising on its sovereignty and territorial integrity!”
India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri provided further details during a news conference, saying it had been agreed that both parties “would stop all firing and military action” from 5 p.m. Indian Standard Time (7:30 a.m. ET).
External Affairs Minister of India S. Jaishankar also confirmed the agreement via a post on X. “India and Pakistan have today worked out an understanding on stoppage of firing and military action. India has consistently maintained a firm and uncompromising stance against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. It will continue to do so,” he said.
What made US change?
According to CNN, a core group of top US officials — including Vice President Vance, Secretary of State and Interim National Security Adviser Marco Rubio, and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles — had been closely monitoring the escalating conflict.
On Friday morning, they got “alarming intelligence of great sensitivity.” It was critical in persuading the three officials that the US should increase its involvement.
The tide in the war had turned radically when Indian missiles attacked Pakistan air force bases in Rafiqui, Murid, Nur Khan, Chunian in Punjab and Sukkur in Sindh, damaging key infrastructure that could have been used against India.
The runway of an airport in Rahim Yar Khan – that is situated within 100 km of the International Border – was also damaged with the missile impact, leaving a large crater. India appears to have also hit the runway of Mushaf airbase in Sargodha.
The Murid air base serves as a key facility for maintaining the operational readiness of Pakistan’s air assets in the region bordering India. It is home to a fleet of fighter jets and drones. Shahpar 1, Shahpar 2, Burraq, Falco, Bayraktar TB2S, Bayraktar Akinci, CH-4, and Wing Loong 2 are among Pakistan’s high-end drone stationed at this air base.
Nur Khan air base: Nuclear strategic centre
The Nur Khan airbase near Rawalpindi was the most important of these bases to be hit. It is home to Pakistan’s main transport squadrons and is used for logistical and strategic airlift operations. Transport aircraft like C-130 Hercules and Saab 2000, and IL-78 mid-air refuellers along with aircraft to ferry VIPs. The Nur Khan air base also houses a pilot training school and an aircraft maintenance facility. It is responsible for securing Pakistan’s skies around Islamabad and the northern regions. This air base is essential for rapid deployment and mobility.
Concern over explosions hitting the Nur Khan airbase on May 9 was what drove Vance and Rubio into action, The New York Times reported. The airbase lies near the headquarters of Pakistan’s “Strategic Plans Division”, which oversees and protects the country’s nuclear arsenal.
“Pakistan’s deepest fear is of its nuclear command authority being decapitated,” The NYT quoted an unnamed former official saying. “The missile strike on Noor Khan could have been interpreted, the former official said, as a warning that India could do just that.”
Pakistani media reported that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had summoned a meeting of the National Command Authority, the body in charge of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. These reports were denied later.
Pakistan waved nuclear card
Faced with a barrage of strikes from India on its military bases, Pakistan waved the nuclear card. Islamabad knew this would rouse the White House into action. And India, too, estimated that Pakistan would flash the nuclear card and that the global community would spring to rein Islamabad in, so New Delhi could escalate its conventional military actions without the possibility of triggering a nuclear war.
Vance gets into the act
An alarmed US Vice President Vance spoke to Modi on May 9 saying that the White House believed there was a “high probability for dramatic escalation” that could tip into full-scale war.
“Over the past 48 hours, Vance and I have engaged with senior Indian and Pakistani officials, including Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Shehbaz Sharif, External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir, and National Security Advisers Ajit Doval and Asim Malik,” Marco Rubio said in a post on X.
1999 nuclear threat
It was not the first time the US had helped bring the two nuclear powers back from the brink. In July 1999, then President Bill Clinton intervened after Pakistan issued veiled threats suggesting the possible use of nuclear weapons at the height of the Kargil War, which was fought in the high mountainous district in Ladakh and on the Line of Control, the de facto border.
Pakistan’s then Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad had warned that escalation of the conflict could lead Pakistan to use “any weapon” in its arsenal, a statement widely interpreted as a nuclear threat.
This time, too, Pakistan was most likely threatening to go nuclear, said Dr Aparna Pande, a South Asia research fellow at Hudson Institute who has written several books on the foreign policies of Pakistan and India.
“Pakistan does that every time it fears that India may go up the ladder and especially if the world community is not paying enough attention. So, it brought out the nuclear card. They knew the US would immediately get nervous,” she said.
Nuclear arsenals of Pakistan and India
India first conducted nuclear tests in May 1974 before subsequent tests in May 1998, after which it declared itself a nuclear weapons state. Within days, Pakistan launched a series of six nuclear tests and officially became a nuclear-armed state, too. Each side has since raced to build arms and nuclear stockpiles bigger than the other, a project that has cost them billions of dollars.
India is currently estimated to have more than 180 nuclear warheads. It has developed longer-range missiles and mobile land-based missiles capable of delivering them, and is working with Russia to build ship and submarine missiles, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
Pakistan’s arsenal, meanwhile, consists of more than 170 warheads. The country enjoys technological support from its regional ally, China, and its stockpile includes primarily mobile short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, with enough range to hit just inside India.
What’s India’s nuclear policy?
New Delhi’s first and only nuclear doctrine was published in 2003 and has not been formally revised. The architect of that doctrine, the late strategic analyst K Subrahmanyam, was the father of India’s current foreign minister, S Jaishankar. Only the Prime Minister, as head of the political council of the Nuclear Command Authority, can authorise a nuclear strike.
India’s nuclear doctrine is built around four principles:
No First Use (NFU): This principle means that India will not be the first to launch nuclear attacks on its enemies. It will only retaliate with nuclear weapons if it is first hit in a nuclear attack.
Credible Minimum Deterrence: India’s nuclear posture is centred around deterrence – that is, its nuclear arsenal is meant primarily to discourage other countries from launching a nuclear attack on the country. India maintains that its nuclear arsenal is insurance against such attacks. It’s one of the reasons why New Delhi is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as it maintains that all countries uniformly disarm before it does the same.
Massive Retaliation: India’s retaliation to a first-strike from an aggressor will be calculated to inflict such destruction and damage that the enemy’s military capabilities will be annihilated.
India will use nuclear weapons against any state that targets the country or its military forces abroad with biological or chemical weapons, according to the doctrine.
Will India stick to NFU?
Although India’s official doctrine has remained the same, Indian politicians have in recent years implied that a more ambiguous posture regarding the No First Use policy might be in the works, presumably to match Pakistan’s stance. In 2016, India’s then-Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar questioned if India needed to continue binding itself to NFU. In 2019, the present Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said that India had so far strictly adhered to the NFU policy, but that changing situations could affect that. “What happens in the future depends on the circumstances,” Singh had said.
Pakistan’s nuclear policy
Pakistan has never officially released a comprehensive policy statement on its nuclear weapons use, giving it the flexibility to potentially deploy nuclear weapons at any stage of a conflict, as it has threatened to do in the past.
Experts widely believe that from the outset, Islamabad’s non-transparency was “strategic” and meant to act as a “deterrence” to India’s superior conventional military strength, rather than to India’s nuclear power alone.
Gen. Kidwai’s red lines
However, in 2001, Lt. Gen. (Retd) Khalid Ahmed Kidwai, regarded as a pivotal strategist involved in Pakistan’s nuclear policy, and an adviser to the nuclear command agency, laid out four broad “red lines” or triggers that could result in a nuclear weapon deployment.
These read lines are: Any loss of large parts of Pakistani territory could warrant a response; destruction or targeting of a large number of its air or land forces could be a trigger, actions by aggressors that might have a choking effect on Pakistan’s economy and actions that lead to political destabilisation or large-scale internal disharmony.