Indian surface-to-air missiles were already soaring towards Pakistan’s most significant military bases when the first call came from the US.
It was 4am in Islamabad and Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state and recently appointed US national security adviser, was on the line to the man everyone knew was calling the shots in Pakistan: army chief Gen Asim Munir.
The beginning of eight hours of negotiations, mediated by the US, finally secured a fragile ceasefire between India and Pakistan at midday on Saturday, according to two Pakistan security and intelligence officials who spoke to the Guardian. The agreement was first publicly announced by Donald Trump on his Truth Social platform. However, Pakistan said the US president never personally made any calls to their side during the negotiations.
When India first launched missiles at Pakistan early on Wednesday, as retribution for a militant attack in Kashmir in April that killed 26 people, the US showed little interest in getting involved.
The US had already said India had “the right to defend itself” after the Kashmir attack, and India framed its strikes on Pakistan as solely hitting “terrorist camps” that threatened its national security, rather than any civilian or military targets.
Asked in the Oval Office that day about the escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, Trump said dismissively: “They’ve been fighting for a long time. I just hope it ends very quickly.” Speaking on Thursday, his vice-president, JD Vance, said simply it was “none of our business”.
But by late Friday night, as both sides escalated the conflict, it was made clear to the Trump administration that leaving the two nuclear armed countries to their own devices posed a danger not just to the region but to the world – and that the only third party mediator acceptable to both sides was the US, as it has historically been over decades. In particular, the US began to fear the escalation towards a nuclear threat was becoming a very real possibility.
This threat was seen to escalate further after India launched strikes at three critical Pakistani air bases, including Nur Khan air base in the city of Rawalpindi, in the early hours of Saturday – an attack said to be an attempt to pre-empt an imminent strike by Pakistan. The headquarters of the army and military wing who safeguard Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are based in Rawalpindi, and the army chief and the prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, were so concerned that the PM called for a meeting of the National Command Authority (NCA), the body in control of Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities. Pakistan later denied ever calling the meeting.
“At this point, the fear for everyone was a nuclear war between two arch rivals,” said one Pakistan security official – something Trump referenced on Monday when he boasted on his Truth Social social media network that he had prevented a “bad nuclear war” between the two countries.
Trump had tasked Rubio with talking down the Pakistan side, while Vance was the one dealing directly with India and its prime minister, Narendra Modi.
Rubio made repeated calls not only to Munir, the army chief, but also Pakistan’s national security adviser, Asim Malik, and Sharif. According to officials, the message from Rubio was simple: this needs to stop. Interventions were also made by Saudi Arabia, Iran and the UAE, and the UK also applied pressure through diplomatic backchannels. “We welcomed the US intervention,” said one Pakistan official. “We don’t want war but if it is imposed upon us, then we have no choice to respond with aggression, as we did.” India has since maintained that their fight was “only with terrorists” and that it was “a shame that the Pakistan military chose to intervene”.
By 2.30pm on Saturday, the heads of both Pakistan and India’s military operations spoke on the phone for the first time since hostilities broke out. Initially, they agreed for the ceasefire to begin at 4pm, but after reports of cross-border firing and drones along the disputed border in Kashmir, known as the line of control, it was pushed back.
As well as an end to all aggressions, the ceasefire included an agreement for future truce talks to take place between the two countries, likely in one of the Gulf states such as the UAE, according to officials. Anwaar ul Haq Kakar, the former prime minister of Pakistan who has been privy to high-level discussions, said the talks would primarily focus on securing the ceasefire and discussions on India’s ongoing suspension of the Indus River treaty, which governs critical water flow into Pakistan.
“Immediately Kashmir issue might not be discussed – but after some confidence-building measures, the issue of Kashmir will be on the table,” said Kakar.
While Pakistan openly discussed the US role in brokering peace, Sharif publicly thanking Trump for his involvement, India made no mention at all of any outside influence in the agreement – instead later claiming it was Pakistan who had first approached them for a ceasefire.
Indian officials did not respond to requests by the Guardian to discuss the ceasefire negotiations. However, analysts said India’s refusal to discuss any US role in a ceasefire was indicative of the Modi government’s non-alignment foreign policy and its bullish rejection of outside interference in India’s affairs. On Sunday, Trump, who seemed to have discovered a newfound interest in the subcontinent, tweeted that he was willing to work with India “to see if, after a ‘thousand years’, a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir”.
India and Pakistan’s dispute over Kashmir dates back not thousands of years, but instead to 1947, after the partition of India and the formation of Pakistan. The two countries have since fought three wars over the region, which remains divided between them. Indian-administered Kashmir is home to a decades-long violent insurgency, said to be backed and funded by Pakistan, and is one of the most militarised zones in the world.
India has historically rejected third-party mediation on Kashmir, viewing it as a sovereign issue, and remains highly sensitive to any discussion over it at an international level. New developments in the nuclear powers’ harrowing four-day conflict, along with entrenched religious nationalism on each side, could signal more frequent battles ahead.
India and Pakistan have seemingly pulled back from the brink again. But so much was new about the nuclear-armed enemies’ chaotic four-day clash, and so many of the underlying accelerants remain volatile, that there’s little to suggest that the truce represents any return to old patterns of restraint.
A new generation of military technology fueled a dizzying aerial escalation. Waves of airstrikes and antiaircraft volleys with modern weapons set the stage. Soon they were joined by weaponized drones en masse for the first time, both along the two countries’ extensive boundaries and deep into their territory — hundreds of them in the sky, probing each nation’s defenses and striking without risk to any pilot.
Then the missiles and drones were streaking past the border areas and deep into India’s and Pakistan’s territories, directly hitting air and defense bases, prompting dire threats and the highest level of military alert. After a terrorist attack in Kashmir, India and Pakistan traded volleys of attacks. The two sides said they had agreed to a cease-fire on Saturday.
Only then did international diplomacy — a crucial factor in past pullbacks between India and Pakistan — seem to engage in earnest, at what felt like the last minute before catastrophe. In a new global chapter defined by perilous conflicts, distracted leaders, and a retreating sense of international responsibility to keep peace, the safety net had never seemed thinner. “Going back historically, many of the India-Pakistan conflicts have been stopped because of external intervention,” said Srinath Raghavan, a military historian and strategic analyst.
Mr. Raghavan observed that neither country has a significant military industrial base, and the need to rely on weapons sales from abroad means outside pressure can have an effect. But the positions of both sides appeared more extreme this time, and India in particular seemed to want to see if it could achieve an outcome different from previous conflicts. “I think there is a stronger sort of determination, it seems, on the part of the Indian government to sort of make sure that the Pakistanis do not feel that they can just get away or get even,” he said. “Which definitely is part of the escalatory thing. Both sides seem to feel that they cannot let this end with the other side feeling that they have somehow got the upper hand.”
The political realities in India and Pakistan — each gripped by an entrenched religious nationalism — remain unchanged after the fighting. And that creates perhaps the most powerful push toward the kind of confrontation that could get out of hand again. Pakistan is dominated by a military establishment that has stifled civilian institutions and is run by a hard-line general who is a product of decades of efforts to Islamize the armed forces. And the triumphalism of Hindu nationalism, which is reshaping India’s secular democracy as an overtly Hindu state, has driven an uncompromising approach to Pakistan.
There was still no indication that Pakistan or India might repair their diplomatic relations, which had been frosty even before the military escalation, or ease visa restrictions on each other’s citizens. And India did not seem to be backing away from its declaration that it would no longer comply with a river treaty between the two countries — a critical factor for Pakistan, which said that any effort to block water flows would be seen as an act of war.
The spark for the latest fighting was a terrorist attack on the Indian side of Kashmir that killed 26 civilians on April 22. India accused Pakistan of supporting the attackers. Pakistan denied any role.
The crisis ended a six-year lull in which Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Indian government had taken a two-pronged approach to Pakistan: trying to isolate its neighbor with minimum contact and to bolster security at home, particularly through heavily militarizing the Indian side of Kashmir. Establishing a pattern of escalatory military action in response to terrorist attacks in 2016 and 2019, India had boxed itself into a position of maximal response. After last month’s attack, the political pressure to deliver a powerful military response was immediate.
But the choices for India’s military were not easy. It publicly fumbled the last direct surgical strike in Pakistan in 2019, when a transport helicopter went down, and when Pakistani forces shot down a Soviet-era Indian fighter plane and captured its pilot.
Mr. Modi’s effort to modernize his military since then, pouring in billions of dollars, was hampered by supply constraints caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine. India was also stressed by a four-year skirmish on its Himalayan border with China, where tens of thousands of troops remained on war footing until a few months ago. When it came time to use force against Pakistan this past week, India wanted to put that lost prestige and those past difficulties behind it. It also sought to show a new, more muscular approach on the world stage, able to wield not just its rising economic and diplomatic power, but military might as well.
Western diplomats, former officials and analysts who have studied the dynamics between India and Pakistan said that India came out of this latest conflict looking assertive and aggressive, and perhaps has established some new level of deterrence with Pakistan.
In its opening round of airstrikes, India struck targets deeper inside the enemy territory than it had in decades, and by all accounts had hit close enough to facilities associated with terrorist groups that it could claim victory. Each day that followed was filled with language from both India and Pakistan suggesting that they had achieved what they wanted and were ready for restraint. But each night was filled with violence and escalation. More traditional artillery volleys across the border kept intensifying, bringing the heaviest loss of life. And the drone and airstrikes grew increasingly bold, until some of each country’s most sensitive military and strategic sites were being targeted.
What finally seemed to trigger the intense diplomatic pressure from the United States, with clear help on the ground from the Saudis and other Persian Gulf states, was not just that the targets were getting closer to sensitive sites — but also just what the next step in a rapid escalation ladder for two alarmed nuclear powers could mean. Shortly before a cease-fire was announced late on Saturday, Indian officials were already signaling that any new terror attack against India’s interests would be met with similar levels of force.
“We have left India’s future history to ask what politico-strategic advantages, if any, were gained,” said Gen. Ved Prakash Malik, a former chief of the Indian Army.
India launched a massive strike deep inside Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) to avenge the killing of Indian civilians by Pakistan-linked terrorists. The operation was an absolute success, the government has said.
India destroyed nine high-value terror launchpads across Pakistan and PoJK. The targets belonged to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and Hizbul Mujahideen. The locations were identified as key training and operational centres for planning attacks against India. Deep Strikes Into Pakistan’s Mainland. India changed the terms of engagement, displaying a willingness to strike deep into Pakistan’s heartland. India shredded the notion that terrorists are separate from terrorist backers and thus targeted both, shifting to a new paradigm. Strikes extended hundreds of kilometers inside Pakistan, not just PoJK. India struck targets even in Pakistan’s Punjab province, considered a strategic stronghold of Pakistan’s military. India struck at sensitive terror hubs such as Bahawalpur, places which even the US had not dared to send its drones.
India has made it clear that neither the LoC nor internal Pakistani geography is off-limits if terror emanates from its soil. Through its strikes, India has proved to the world that every inch of Pakistan was within reach. India’s response asserted a doctrinal shift toward calibrated deterrence. Operation Sindoor has drawn a red line Pakistan can no longer ignore – that terrorism as state policy will trigger targeted, visible consequences. For the first time, India decisively rejected the distinction between terrorists and their sponsors, taking action against both. It also undermined the long-standing assumption that certain influential rogue elements within the Pakistani state could orchestrate terrorist activities with impunity.
Indian forces successfully bypassed or jammed Pakistan’s air defence grid. The swift and precise nature of the strikes, conducted within a 23-minute window, highlighted gaps in Pakistan’s air defense systems. Indian Rafale jets equipped with SCALP missiles and HAMMER bombs executed the mission without any reported losses, demonstrating technological and strategic superiority. India demonstrated the evolving nature of modern air defence. India defended its airspace with a robust and layered architecture. Also, India successfully penetrated the Chinese-made systems fielded by Pakistan, in a reminder that defence is not about what you buy but about what you integrate. The Akashteer Air Defence System proved its impact by downing hundreds of Pakistani drones and missiles and is now positioned as a global export contender. No military or civilian infrastructure targeted initially – only terror assets. India followed its zero-tolerance doctrine while avoiding broader escalation. Several terrorists were eliminated, including those on India’s most wanted list. The leadership of multiple terror modules has been wiped out in a single night.
India’s counter-military actions on the night of May 9 and 10 also became the first instance of a country damaging the air force camps of a nuclear-armed country. Within three hours, 11 bases were attacked, including Nur Khan, Rafiqui, Murid, Sukkur, Sialkot, Pasrur, Chunian, Sargodha, Skaru, Bholari and Jacobabad.
This led to the destruction of 20 per cent infrastructure of the Pakistani Air Force (PAF). India bombed Pakistan’s Bholari air base, killing over 50, including Pakistan’s Squadron Leader Usman Yousuf, four airmen, among others, as well as destroying Pakistan’s fighter jets. The Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force executed coordinated strikes – proof of India’s growing joint warfare capability.
India showed the world that it will not wait for permission to defend its people. Terror will be punished – anytime, anywhere. It also showed that terrorists and their masterminds have no place to hide. If Pakistan retaliates, not only can India handle them, but It will also hit and twist the knife if it comes to that.
In earlier conflicts, as soon as something used to escalate against Pakistan, most countries used to descend on India, asking for restraint. This time, however, multiple world leaders came in support of India’s fight against terrorism. For the first time, India and Pakistan ties were seen in the light of terrorism. It was completely de-hyphenated from the Kashmir issue.
