India and Pakistan: How backchannels and US mediators pulled rivals back from the brink
In a dramatic turn of events, US President Donald Trump announced on Saturday that India and Pakistan had agreed to a ‘full and immediate ceasefire’ after four tense days of cross-border clashes. The announcement came after the two nuclear-armed rivals had been on the brink of a full-scale conflict, with both sides accusing each other of missile strikes on airbases and escalating military hostilities.
Behind the scenes, US mediators, along with diplomatic backchannels and regional players, played a crucial role in de-escalating the situation. Experts say that the involvement of the United States was key in preventing a larger conflict, though the ceasefire has been followed by accusations of renewed violations from both sides, highlighting its fragility.
India accused Pakistan of ‘repeated violations’ of the ceasefire, while Pakistan insisted that its forces had remained committed to the agreement, emphasizing ‘responsibility and restraint.’ The crisis had been triggered by a deadly militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir last month, which led to a series of air strikes and military confrontations between the two nations.
Before Trump’s announcement, the situation had been spiraling toward what many feared could become a full-blown conflict. The rhetoric from both sides had escalated sharply, with each country claiming to have inflicted heavy damage while foiling the other’s attacks.
The Role of US Mediation
Tanvi Madan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, highlighted the critical role of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s call to Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir on 9 May. She suggested that this might have been the pivotal moment in de-escalating the situation. ‘There’s still much we don’t know about the roles of various international actors, but it’s clear over the past three days that at least three countries were working to de-escalate – the US, of course, but also the UK and Saudi Arabia,’ she said.
Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar stated that ‘three dozen countries’ were involved in the diplomacy, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the US. ‘One question is whether, if this call had come earlier – right after the initial Indian strikes, when Pakistan was already claiming some Indian losses and an off-ramp was available – it might have prevented further escalation,’ Ms Madan said.
Former Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria noted that while US involvement in the 2019 standoff was overstated, the US played an important role in this crisis. ‘The US was the most prominent external player. Last time, Pompeo claimed they averted nuclear war. While they’ll likely exaggerate, they may have played the primary diplomatic role, perhaps amplifying Delhi’s positions in Islamabad,’ Mr Bisaria told the BBC.
Initial US Standoffishness and Subsequent Involvement
At the outset, the US appeared strikingly standoffish. As tensions flared, US Vice President JD Vance said on Thursday that the US was not going to get involved in a war that’s ‘fundamentally none of our business.’ He emphasized that the US could not control the situation, as India and Pakistan had their own grievances. ‘We 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,’ he said in a television interview.
Meanwhile, President Trump expressed his desire for both India and Pakistan to resolve their differences. ‘I know both [leaders of India and Pakistan] very well, and I want to see them work it out… I want to see them stop, and hopefully they can stop now,’ Trump said earlier in the week.
The Role of Regional and International Diplomacy
Ejaz Haider, a Lahore-based defence analyst, noted that this time, the US initially stayed hands-off, watching the crisis unfold before stepping in to manage it. ‘The American role was a continuation of past patterns, but with one key difference – this time, they initially stayed hands-off, watching the crisis unfold instead of jumping in right away. Only when they saw how it was playing out did they step in to manage it,’ Mr Haider told the BBC.
Experts in Pakistan said that as the escalation cycle deepened, Pakistan sent ‘dual signals,’ retaliating militarily while announcing a National Command Authority (NCA) meeting – a clear reminder of the nuclear overhang. The NCA controls and takes operational decisions regarding Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.
The US was indispensable in this outcome, according to Ashley J Tellis, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. ‘This outcome would not have occurred without Secretary Rubio’s efforts,’ Tellis told the BBC. What also helped was Washington’s deepening ties with Delhi.
Key Peace Tracks and US Strategic Leverage
Indian diplomats see three key peace tracks that happened this time, much like after Pulwama–Balakot in 2019:
- US and UK pressure
- Saudi mediation, with the Saudi junior foreign minister visiting both capitals
- The direct India-Pakistan channel between the two national security advisors (NSAs)
Despite shifting global priorities and a hands-off posture at first, the US ultimately stepped in as the indispensable mediator between South Asia’s nuclear rivals.
Whether overstated by its own officials or underacknowledged by Delhi and Islamabad, experts believe the US’s role as crisis manager remains as vital – and as complicated – as ever.
Doubts do, however, linger over the ceasefire’s durability after Saturday’s events, with some Indian media reporting it was essentially brokered by senior military officials of the two countries – not the US.
‘This ceasefire is bound to be a fragile one. It came about very quickly, amid sky-high tensions. India appears to have interpreted it differently than did the US and Pakistan,’ Michael Kugelman, a foreign policy analyst, told the BBC. ‘Also, since it was put together so hastily, the accord may lack the proper guarantees and assurances one would need at such a tense moment.’