Follow us on social

google cta
Kashmir terror attack

The India-Pakistan Clash: Welcome to the Post-Unipolar World

The Trump admin has properly realized that the US has only limited interests at stake in this deep-rooted conflict in a distant land

Analysis | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

India responded to the April 22 terrorist attack on tourists in picturesque Kashmir valley by striking multiple sites in Pakistan on Tuesday. This has led to questions as to what Washington should do as these two countries clash. What are U.S. interests in this theater and how should it defend them?

President Trump reacted to the news by saying “We knew something was going to happen…they’ve been fighting for a long time…many, many decades,” and expressing the hope that “it ends very quickly.” In earlier statements, Washington had strongly condemned the terrorist attack that triggered this cycle and also urged calm between the two Asian neighbors.

The United States has a major interest in combating terrorism. Most of the vast militant complex operating in Pakistan traces its origins to the U.S. Cold War strategy of using fundamentalist proxies to counter the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The spillovers from that conflict have been deadly. Among these is the turbocharging of the India-Pakistan rivalry, a rivalry which is itself rooted in the colonial partition of India in 1947.

But all that lies in the past. Fast forward to today and it is clear that the United States has only limited interests and constrained influence in the region. In terms of combating terrorism, there has long been strong and bipartisan cooperation between Washington and New Delhi, especially since the brutal terror attacks in Mumbai in November 2008 conducted by the Pakistani radical group Lashkar-e-Taiba. The Trump administration recently extradited Tahawwur Rana, a Pakistani-origin Canadian citizen, to India. Rana was convicted by a U.S. court for his role in the Mumbai attacks.

Apart from ensuring that terrorists are duly brought to justice, the United States, along with the rest of the world, also has an interest in not seeing an all-out nuclear war break out anywhere. In South Asia, escalation to nuclear use is more likely from Pakistan. Unlike India, its nuclear doctrine does not include a No First Use commitment. Islamabad might be tempted to use its tactical nukes to fend off any major Indian conventional offensive that conquers significant parts of its territory. But we are very far from such a scenario in South Asia.

The second India-Pakistan military clash in six years is just one symptom of our post-unipolar world. In such a world, many states, especially in the Global South, will have more agency. Some will exercise it forcefully in their perceived interests. The United States will often not be responsible for these dynamics. The flip side of this is that the United States will also be unable to “fix” the challenges of deep-rooted rivalries in distant lands. The Trump administration seems to instinctively realize this, at least in South Asia.


Top photo credit: An Indian paramilitary soldier stands guard near the Clock Tower (Ghanta Ghar) in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, on May 7, 2025. (Photo by Firdous Nazir/NurPhoto)
google cta
Analysis | QiOSK
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.