Follow us on social

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

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)
Analysis | QiOSK
iraqi protests iran israel
Top photo credit: Iraqi Shi'ite Muslims hold a cutout of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as they attend a protest against Israeli strikes on Iran, in Baghdad, Iraq, June 16, 2025. REUTERS/Ahmed Saad

Iraq on razor's edge between Iran and US interests in new war

Middle East

As Israeli jets and Iranian rockets streak across the Middle Eastern skies, Iraq finds itself caught squarely in the crossfire.

With regional titans clashing above its head, Iraq’s fragile and hard-won stability, painstakingly rebuilt over decades of conflict, now hangs precariously in the balance. Washington’s own tacit acknowledgement of Iraq’s vulnerable position was laid bare by its decision to partially evacuate embassy personnel in Iraq and allow military dependents to leave the region.

This withdrawal, prompted by intelligence indicating Israeli preparations for long-range strikes, highlighted that Iraq’s airspace would be an unwitting corridor for Israeli and Iranian operations.

Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani is now caught in a complicated bind, attempting to uphold Iraq’s security partnership with the United States while simultaneously facing intense domestic pressure from powerful, Iran-aligned Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) factions. These groups, emboldened by the Israel-Iran clash, have intensified their calls for American troop withdrawal and threaten renewed attacks against U.S. personnel, viewing them as legitimate targets and enablers of Israeli aggression.

keep readingShow less
George Bush mission accomplished
This file photo shows Bush delivering a speech to crew aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, as the carrier steamed toward San Diego, California on May 1, 2003. via REUTERS

Déjà coup: Iran war activates regime change dead-enders

Washington Politics

By now you’ve likely seen the viral video of an Iranian television reporter fleeing off-screen as Israel bombed the TV station where she was recording live. As the Quincy Institute’s Adam Weinstein quickly pointed out, Israel's attack on the broadcasting facility is directly out of the regime change playbook, “meant to shake public confidence in the Iranian government's ability to protect itself” and by implication, Iran’s citizenry.

Indeed, in the United States there is a steady drumbeat of media figures and legislators who have been loudly championing Israel’s apparent desire to overthrow the regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

keep readingShow less
Ukraine NATO
Top photo credit: August 2024 -- Led by the United Kingdom and involving trainers from 12 other countries, Operation Interflex gives Ukrainian recruits a five-week crash course in everything from infantry tactics to combat first aid, preparing them to defend their homeland. . (NATO/Flickr)

How NATO military doctrine failed Ukraine on the battlefield

Europe

The war in Ukraine has raged for over three years. As ceasefire talks loom, major European NATO members including Germany, UK, France and Denmark are planning to protect any future armistice by sending their troops as peacekeepers in a “Coalition of the Willing.”

Their goal is to deter the Russians from restarting the war. Unfortunately, deterrence comes from combat capability. Without it there is no deterrence at all. That capability is in question. NATO equipment and doctrine was developed for the Cold War and tested in the mountains of Afghanistan. It has not been tested in conventional war and needs to absorb lessons from the Ukraine war to offer a military option to the European elites, independent of the United States.

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.