In 2025, the escalating military tensions between India and Pakistan brought the world to the edge of one of the most catastrophic crises of the 21st century, evoking haunting parallels with the drôle de guerre—the “phoney war” that preceded the cataclysm of World War I. Coined in France to describe a period of tense calm before all-out conflict, the term belied the looming tragedy. In the Indian subcontinent, the similarities are chilling: a volatile mix of fervent nationalism, strategic miscalculations, and the cynical use of external conflict to suppress internal dissent pushed the world to the precipice of nuclear disaster.
As the historian Yuval Noah Harari observes in Homo Deus, “Wars are not sparked by ideologies but by mischanneled emotions and miscalculations.” This insight resonates deeply in the Indo-Pakistani context, where reckless political choices nearly triggered an unprecedented calamity, the likes of which have not been seen since 1945.
A CRISIS WITH GLOBAL RAMIFICATIONS
Military leaders, acutely aware of war’s horrors, typically view it as a last resort. Yet in Pakistan, a faltering authoritarian regime, desperate to deflect mounting domestic unrest, chose escalation as a diversionary tactic. This recklessness, orchestrated by the military establishment that wields true power, imperiled global peace at a time when major powers are recalibrating their strategies to counter China’s rise.
The Trump 2.0 administration, despite its internal frictions, played a pivotal role in defusing the crisis. While President Donald J. Trump positioned himself as a mediator, Vice President J.D. Vance, in an ill-judged isolationist remark, claimed the conflict was not America’s concern—a statement that diplomatic sources say was not cleared with the Oval Office. Trump, with his trademark bluntness, personally called Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with whom he shares a close rapport, as well as Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and the chief of Pakistan’s armed forces, the primary architect of the escalation. His message was unequivocal: de-escalation was non-negotiable.
Far from being a conflict Washington desired, the crisis undermined the U.S. strategy of containing China, particularly amid fears of a potential Chinese offensive against Taiwan. As French geopolitical analyst François Heisbourg noted in The Return of War (2022), “Regional conflicts involving nuclear powers morph into global crises by their capacity to destabilize the international order.” The Indo-Pakistani escalation primarily benefited Beijing, which, through its ally Pakistan—now a spearhead and proxy—weakened India, its longstanding rival. After 78 years of unresolved grievances, deep-seated animosities, incessant skirmishes, and four wars, the two nations stood on the brink of nuclear conflict. A single misstep—an attack on a seat of power, a civilian target with mass casualties, or a fierce battle—could have unleashed an unstoppable war.
ROOTS OF THE CONFLICT: KASHMIR AND TERRORISM
Far from being resolved by this temporary de-escalation, the Indo-Pakistani crisis has its origins in the 1947 partition, with Kashmir as its enduring flashpoint, bisected by the Line of Control (LoC). The spark came on April 22, 2025, with a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir, carried out by the Resistance Front (TRF), a front for the Pakistan-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). The massacre of 26 people, mostly Indian Hindus, ignited fury in New Delhi, which retaliated by suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, sealing borders, and expelling Pakistani diplomats. Rather than cooperating, Pakistan denied the accusations and lionized the slain terrorists with state-sanctioned heroic funerals, further inflaming tensions.
On May 7, India launched Operation Sindoor, a precision strike targeting nine sites in Pakistan identified as LeT and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) bases. Employing Rafale and Sukhoi Su-30 fighters, SCALP missiles, HAMMER smart bombs, kamikaze drones, and precision artillery, India demolished facilities in Bahawalpur, Muridke, and Muzaffarabad. On May 8, it neutralized air defense systems near Lahore, radars, weapons depots, and command centers, carefully minimizing civilian casualties to avoid uncontrolled escalation. Pakistan responded with artillery and drone strikes along the LoC, hitting Bhimber Gali and areas near Amritsar. Islamabad’s claim of downing five Indian jets, including a Rafale, was debunked by international media, exposing its propaganda. In the early hours of May 10, Pakistan struck Indian military bases near New Delhi, pushing tensions to a critical threshold.
REGIONAL AND GEOPOLITICAL FALLOUT
The 2025 crisis not only threatened to destabilize South Asia but cast a long shadow over the global geopolitical order. Regionally, the disruption of cross-border trade severely impacted fragile economies like Afghanistan and Bangladesh, which rely on trade routes through the subcontinent. Maritime traffic in the Arabian Sea, a vital corridor for Persian Gulf oil exports, faced restrictions, raising the specter of surging energy prices and supply chain disruptions. This economic toll was no mere byproduct but a stark reminder of South Asia’s centrality to the global economy, where instability can send shockwaves worldwide.
Politically, the crisis fueled rampant nationalism and rekindled latent conflicts. In India, the Pahalgam attack and subsequent clashes bolstered Prime Minister Modi’s government, which leveraged public outrage to project resolve against terrorism. In Pakistan, the military regime exploited the escalation to divert attention from domestic protests, but at the cost of exacerbating sectarian and ethnic tensions, particularly in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where separatist movements gained momentum. These internal dynamics, coupled with polarization in Kashmir, heightened the risk of social fragmentation that could further destabilize the region.
The specter of nuclear conflict, far from theoretical, became terrifyingly real. Both India and Pakistan possess significant nuclear arsenals with second-strike capabilities, ensuring mutually assured destruction. A 2023 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) estimates that even a limited nuclear exchange could kill tens of millions outright, trigger a nuclear winter that would devastate global agriculture, and contaminate Himalayan rivers, a water source for hundreds of millions.
Geopolitically, the crisis deepened the strategic alignments of both nations, entrenching South Asia’s division into opposing blocs. India strengthened ties with the West, particularly the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, which view New Delhi as a critical counterweight to China. Pakistan leaned further into its alliances with China and Turkey, cementing its role as Beijing’s regional proxy. This polarization complicated Washington’s China containment strategy, which prioritizes the Indo-Pacific to counter a potential Chinese move on Taiwan.
China, as an indirect beneficiary, seized the opportunity to advance its regional agenda by weakening India. Through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), Beijing has poured billions into Pakistani infrastructure, securing influence over Islamabad. The escalation enabled China to position Pakistan as a bulwark against India, diverting New Delhi’s focus from its growing role in the Quad (U.S., India, Japan, Australia) and other anti-China initiatives. As Brahma Chellaney, a leading Indian strategic affairs expert, wrote in The Japan Times (2024), “China’s support for Pakistan is less about bilateral friendship and more about keeping India off-balance in its own backyard.”
EXPANDED ANALYSIS: CHINA’S STRATEGIC MANEUVERING
To deepen the analysis, China’s role warrants closer scrutiny, as it exemplifies how great powers exploit regional conflicts to advance global ambitions. Beijing’s strategy in the Indo-Pakistani crisis was not one of direct intervention but of calculated opportunism. By bolstering Pakistan through economic and diplomatic support, China ensured that Islamabad remained a reliable proxy to counter India, its chief regional rival. The CPEC, a cornerstone of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, has transformed Pakistan into a client state, with projects like the Gwadar Port giving Beijing a strategic foothold in the Arabian Sea, close to the Persian Gulf’s oil routes.
This crisis also served China’s broader goal of diverting U.S. attention from the Indo-Pacific, where tensions over Taiwan and the South China Sea are mounting. By keeping India embroiled in a conflict with Pakistan, China weakened New Delhi’s ability to project power in forums like the Quad, where India is a linchpin of anti-China containment efforts. Moreover, Beijing’s tacit support for Pakistan’s military establishment, despite its links to terrorist groups like LeT and JeM, raises questions about China’s commitment to regional stability. As Anne Applebaum notes in Twilight of Democracy (2020), “Authoritarian powers often back unstable regimes or non-state actors to sow chaos, knowing it serves their strategic interests.” China’s silence on Pakistan’s use of terrorism as a geopolitical tool aligns with this pattern, undermining global counterterrorism efforts.
MEDIATION AND RESOLUTION
Mediation offers flooded in, though not all were credible. Iran’s proposal, given its track record of fomenting instability in the Middle East, was dismissed as farcical in such a grave context. Saudi Arabia, with strong ties to both nations, announced a mediation tour, but it was Trump’s intervention that proved decisive. In a direct and uncompromising call to both leaders, the U.S. president brokered a face-saving solution: a total and unconditional ceasefire.
CONCLUSION: A PRECIPICE AVOIDED, A THREAT ENDURING
Had this vicious cycle of action and reaction not been halted, the world could have plunged into a nuclear war, however limited, with tens of millions dead, a nuclear winter, and contaminated Himalayan rivers, dooming the region—and the globe—to decades of devastation, disease, and poverty. All this to prop up a Pakistani military regime that, cloaked in democratic guise, wields terrorism as a geopolitical weapon.
The international community must unequivocally condemn those who promote, fund, or shield terrorism. This time, humanity narrowly escaped catastrophe, but the threat remains, latent and imminent. As Harari warns, “History does not forgive repeated mistakes.” It now falls to global powers and regional actors to heed the lessons of this crisis to prevent another slide into the abyss.
Gustavo de Arístegui is a Spanish Diplomat, Author and was Spain’s ambassador to India (2012-2016).
(Cover Photo: The Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Shri Vikram Misri briefing the media on ‘Operation Sindoor’ in presence of Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh at National Media Centre, in New Delhi on May 07, 2025. Photo Credit: PIB)
Donald TrumpFake NewsIndiaIndian Air ForceIndian ArmyIndian NavyMisinformationNarendra ModiNuclear WeaponsPakistanPoliticsSocial Media WarTerrorismUSAWar