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
American Special Operations
Top image credit: (shutterstock/FabrikaSimf)

American cult: Why our special ops need a reset

Military Industrial Complex

This article is the latest installment in our Quincy Institute/Responsible Statecraft project series highlighting the writing and reporting of U.S. military veterans. Click here for more information.

America’s post-9/11 conflicts have left indelible imprints on our society and our military. In some cases, these changes were so gradual that few noticed the change, except as snapshots in time.

keep readingShow less
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

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.