Pictue a silent dawn suddenly torn by the sound of explosions in the Pahalgam valley. On April 22, 2025, 24 people were killed in an attack that revived a decades-old feud between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, bringing the specter of nuclear war back into the international consciousness. India immediately accused Pakistan, conducted the Operation Sindoor airstrikes across the Line of Control (LoC) and Pakistan responded with restriction of its airspace. As heated rhetoric flared on all sides, the misery of average mah5s4 5ashmiri people went deeper, hidden under troop build-ups and Internet blackouts.
There was a rush on the part of Donald Trump’s administration to negotiate a ceasefire but can this power, America, really deliver the two warring nuclear titans to the table so they can talk to one another? To negotiate, the US has to walk a tightrope between India’s defiance, Pakistan’s desperation and its own squandered legacy in south Asia. The stakes could hardly be higher, but history and geopolitics cast a harsh shadow over this delicate dance. Do American’s efforts actually represent a pursuit of peace? Or just a new form of strategic self-interest masquerading as altruism?
But the biggest takeaway is that when it comes to public-health recommendations, the track-record in America is one of mistrust.
America’s intervention in South Asia has always been a mixed blessing. Its previous efforts to meditate Indo-Pak tensions were of limited utility and perhaps revealed some very entrenched hypocrisies.
Threading the Needle but Dropping the Thread
Except in India they do — witness the 1999 Kargil conflict or 2019 Pulwama crisis. The U.S. assumed the role of mediator in those two instances, too, but with very little success. Why? India has categorically denied third-party mediation, insisting that Kashmir is a bilateral matter. America’s bias in favor of India only serves to strengthen Pakistani fears and impede constructive dialogue.
Then there’s the global arms sales, which are also part of the equation. During the period 2015–25 Washington sent $20 billion of armaments to India while, at the same time, it was modernizing Pakistan’s F-16 fleet in 2022. It’s the ultimate in moral hypocrisy, calling for peace while stoking the rivalries.
This double dealing only adds to the tension of an already very tense area. For Pakistan, U.S. decisions appear to emphasize the lack of seriousness about promoting regional stability. Just as Pentagon aid to Pakistan is seen as acting against Indian security interests. Such Good Cop, Bad Cop U.S. foreign policy is not only a recipe for mutual distrust, but also for mutual failure to trust any American honesty. With no clear and sovereign principles in sight, the hope of a substantial resolution of the conflict between India and Pakistan is negligible. Far from fostering dialogue, such policies presage an endless cycle of suspicion and enmity.
A Legacy of Double Games
Today’s mistrust is rooted in the Cold War. The U.S. greatly backed Pakistan’s military dictatorships from the 1950s to the 1980s to balance India’s nonalignment. But after the 9/11 attacks, Washington spun around to woo India, using New Delhi as an ally in the American Indo-Pacific competition with China.
This duplicity is nothing less than betrayal for the Kashmiris. America’s silence in 2019 when India revoked Article 370 (stripping Jammu & Kashmir of its autonomy) is another irritant. How are Kashmiris supposed to trust a broker who abandoned them when they were most in need?
Why India Rejects Mediation
The Kashmir Taboo
India’s aversion to international mediation is deep-seated. Politicians of all stripes have opposed third-party intervention in Kashmir, which they have described as a matter of sovereignty. This position hardened in 2025 with nationalist rhetoric from Modi’s BJP government as a backdrop.
After the elections, the hardline policies from New Delhi have not only increased. The Pahalgam attack enabled India to double down on its branding of Pakistan as a “terrorist state,” paving the way for aggressive moves such as Operation Sindoor. Even as the official social media handles rebuffed U.S. calls for restraint, it also served to underline India’s obduracy.
The Quad and Strategic Considerations
India’s resistance is not just a matter of principle but also a vote of confidence in its own geopolitical leverage. Quad membership (a grouping with the U.S., Japan and Australia) and a $100 billion trade partnership with the U.S. protect its flanks. Washington’s hesitation to pressure India over human rights abuses reflects its reliance on New Delhi as a check against China.
Kashmir, meanwhile, remains closed to the world. More than 700,000 troops are patrolling the region, enforcing savage curfews, blacking out the internet and imprisoning the masses. Kashmiri voices are stifled in the noise of world politics.
Can Pakistan use its 2025 UNSC seat to influence the narrative?
Shining a Light on Kashmir
The non-permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) coming up in 2025 is the last gasp of air for Pakistan. Post-Pahalgam, Islamabad fought valiantly to focus international attention on Kashmir at the UN debates. Foreign Minister Salman Sufi pleaded for even U.S. mediation as a road to peace.
Still, Pakistan’s plan is not without its holes. Despite its moral high ground, Islamabad remains unable to control cross-border militancy, making its own stance less convincing. Though it officially denies having a hand in Pahalgam, the suspicion has remained to the detriment of its diplomatic argument.
Economic Hindrances to Leverage
Pakistan’s $70 billion debt burden and dependence on an International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout will keep it from bargaining hard. Its former staunch ally, China, has scaled back support amid its own economic slowdown. Deperate eekin f’os allies, Pakistan is being forced to do businesse with Trump’s administration, even accepting $1 billion in aid tethered to American operations in Afghanistan.
It’s a fragile posture, particularly considering that its mediation calls are aspirational at best.
What Would Effective U.S. Mediation Look Like?
The Tightrope of Credibility
For the U.S., to broker a new Kashmir dialogue in 2025 would take a mix of cunning and neutrality. Neither, however, appears to be on the horizon in the volatile Trump administration. Rubio’s diplomatic engagements with India’s Foreign Minister Jaishankar reference American intentions and rather impotent achievements.
The U.S.‘s intentions are just as suspect. For the U.S., mediation does far more for its Indo-Pacific strategy than any self-effacing yearning for peace.
A Framework for Hope
Here are a growing number of questions that need to be answered if mediation is to succeed:
Confidence-Building Measures: Loc cessation of hostilities and a revival of trade would gradually stabilise relations.
A Neutral Venue: Convening discussions in Geneva would allay worries about bias.
Center Kashmiri Agency: Talk of any sort without Kashmiris across the table is an obvious charade.
Focus on Human Rights: Rolling back of restrictions in J& K must be a precondition. More than 8 million Kashmiris live under surveillance, a travesty that global powers ought to recognize.
The Risks of Failure
Defeat could intensify regional hostilities and embolden hawkish wings in both countries. For with their nuclear arsenals (India has about 170 warheads, and Pakistan about 165), the risks go far beyond South Asia.
Time to Center Kashmir
A conversation wouldn’t be much of a discussion about Kashmir if it made Kashmiris footnotes in their own story. For years, the region has been nothing more than a chess board for great powers. But in the calculation of geopolitics, the ordinary lives of eight million people have been forgotten.
The USA’s mediation is an opening — but only if it comes to terms with its complicity, centers Kashmiri voices and holds accountable not only Pakistan, but India. “If peace between nuclear rivals” is the target, justice, dignity and self determination for the people are the real barometer of success.
The path ahead is perilous, but history teaches one lesson. Brushing aside Kashmir is never a good idea — for anyone.