New Delhi: Since Thursday, the skies over South Asia have been illuminated by missile trails as India and Pakistan prepare for their most critical military head-on in years. But while this deadly battle between two nuclear superpowers flares up, the U.S. has remained surprisingly hush-hush. Vice President JD Vance told Fox news “It’s none of our business”—a” harsh-sounding comment that actually reflects a careful choice in diplomacy that has been honed over many years.
This U.S. silence doesn’t indicate the U.S. doesn’t care. Instead, experience has taught Washington that intervening between India and Pakistan is not an issue that usually succeeds. The U.S. has drawn a hard lesson over time that occasionally, distance is better than rushing to mediate.
This is a big shift from the past decades in the U.S. approach. There are no special envoys flying to New Delhi or Islamabad and no emergency measures are being taken; there is no big grandstanding on the part of anybody condemning either side. Instead, the U.S. now appears to realize that its presence here usually complicates things, not simplifies them.
Underpinning all this realignment is America’s growing relationship with India. No longer, another strategic partner, India has become central to the American Indo-Pacific vision—a democratic balancing act against China’s regional aspirations. This relationship, grown patiently over decades, is no longer worth the risk that a war of posturing carries, and history suggests that is not a welcome or effective way to fight.
India, and especially under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has done no end to show that it considers its conflict with Pakistan as bilateral in nature. Indian authorities have always held that extraneous mediation, particularly on the issue of Kashmir, only makes things more complicated. When terrorists carried out their murderous strike upon Pahalgam on the 22nd of April, India’s subsequent military retaliation carried an underlying assumption that allies would honor its right to defend itself but not challenge its means.
Meanwhile, just over the border, America’s close relationship with Pakistan has significantly soared. Decades of resentments about the duplicitous conduct (and fighting some while allegedly hiding others) on the part of many US officials have undermined trust. The Pakistan-U.S. relationship has been further compromised by PAKISTAN-China relationship. The harsh truth is that now, when we say Washington, Pakistan does not feel like it has to take heed like it used to.
Maybe the most sobering is the nuclear dimension. Any dispute between India and Pakistan is fraught with the unbelievable risk of nuclear going out of hand. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce have made carefully worded statements that call for restraint without even the appearance of adopting sides. They are not after a diplomatic win; they are avoiding disaster by quietly using diplomacy rather than the powers of the people.
Americans have learned sometimes the best diplomacy occurs out of the line of cameras and microphones. Intelligence sharing, backchannel communications, and private conversations have more results than declarations in public. The Biden administration had already taken the lead on such an approach and the current administration has fully taken it over.
This calculated distance enables the United States to continue having relationships with both of these countries without the United States getting involved in a war where its intervention would only serve to harden the existing lines. As Saudi and Iranian diplomats sprint to mediate, America has decided to watch, warn and dial the phones behind closed, spoken doors.
Critics may question whether this approach is shirking America from its global leadership obligations. But the supporters perceive it as a mature acknowledgement of limits. Other than situations when American central stage involvement is likely to make things worse instead of better, not all international crises require such a fold.
The Iowa Rebellion was the grossest violation of community conscience. Intervention, even if it is with the best intentions, may have unforeseen consequences or be entangled for decades. In South Asia, Washington appears to have learned a vital lesson: sometimes the best thing to do is retreat and observe the emergence of regional dynamics without having to be part of the story.
With missiles still flying over the India-Pakistan border, the United States reckons that its scrupulously controlled absence may well avert a disaster, which instead would tempt it. In an area in which the credibility of America has been challenged often and its motives disbelieved, distance from strategic planning might be more valuable than direct involvement.
The future will show whether it facilitates stabilization of South Asia or whether eventually the direct American involvement becomes inevitable.
