Follow us on social

Pakistan India ceasefire

Can Trump-brokered Pakistan-India ceasefire hold?

Both nations have every reason to step back from the brink

Reporting | QiOSK

Saturday morning (U.S. time), President Trump and Rubio claimed credit for brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan following a week of dangerous cross border attacks.

It was not clear by midday whether the ceasefire, if fully confirmed, would hold, though Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif thanked President Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the first acknowledgement of the deal by either side today. “Pakistan appreciates the United States for facilitating this outcome, which we have accepted in the interest of regional peace and stability,” Sharif said.

As international encouragement for the ceasefire came in from Europe, cross border skirmishes were already being reported by the New York Times, indicating the tenuous nature of the situation.

On April 22, terrorists attacked a group of Indian tourists near Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, killing 26 civilians. India blamed Pakistan-based militant groups with a history of cross-border attacks. Pakistan denied responsibility, pointing instead to local Kashmiri militants acting on their own. It was the deadliest civilian attack in India since the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Fears of retaliation surged as India suspended the Indus Water Treaty and both countries canceled each other’s visas.

On May 7, India struck what it said were terrorist camps in Pakistan, launching missiles into Pakistan-administered Kashmir, killing 31 people according to Pakistani authorities. Drone strikes followed in both countries’ Punjab provinces. Pakistan claimed to have downed up to five Indian jets; U.S. officials claimed it was two. This was also viewed as a showcase of Chinese aircraft against French and Russian models.

By Friday night, the conflict escalated dramatically. Drone strikes by both sides were taking place continuously and heavy artillery fire by both sides on the Line of Control in Kashmir was forcing major evacuations of civilians. India targeted military bases inside Pakistan’s Punjab, including Nur Khan airbase near Rawalpindi, close to the military’s headquarters, after alleged Pakistani missile strikes in the Indian state of Punjab. In response, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif convened Pakistan’s National Command Authority, signaling deliberations over its strategic–and possibly nuclear options.

What followed is murky, but U.S. intervention appeared swift. Vice President J.D. Vance had initially downplayed the crisis as “none of our business,” but Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Pakistan’s army chief, urging de-escalation. The Saturday ceasefire news out of Washington is welcome but aside from Rubio and Trump taking credit, both India and Pakistan had plenty of reasons to avoid all out war— for India especially it would have endangered its successful economic growth story. Their close regional partners also pushed for peace. Whether it was true mediation or simply backchannel encouragement remains unclear-but for now, the region has stepped back from the brink, saving many lives.


Top photo credit: People wave Pakistani flags in celebration after the ceasefire announcement between India and Pakistan, in Islamabad, Pakistan, May 10, 2025. REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro
Reporting | QiOSK
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.