As we enter the third day of fighting between two nuclear armed nations, India and Pakistan, the United States has made it clear that it will not serve as a mediator to prevent a regional war. In an interview with Fox News, Vice President JD Vance called the conflict “fundamentally none of our business,” ignoring a nearly 50-year history of the United States using South Asia to push back against Russia and China.
Sticking to the "America First" narrative and publicly stating that the United States will not work to influence any country to “lay down their arms” not only diminishes American power — it gives China the gift of dominating the wealth of trade going through the subcontinent, at the cost of millions of civilian lives.
As a U.S. diplomat at the height of our country’s war in Afghanistan, I witnessed the U.S.’s effort to balance South Asian narratives of trauma while securing benefits for all involved.
As a U.S. diplomat at the height of our country’s war in Afghanistan, I witnessed the United States’ effort to balance South Asian narratives of trauma while securing benefits for all involved. The U.S. is well-equipped to step in as a diplomatic power to stem conflicts between other nations, from the Dayton Accords that settled the Bosnian War in 1995 to building multinational coalitions to keep the peace in the Central African Republic in 2013. In cases where direct talks between leaders at the height of emotion can make the situation worse, U.S. diplomats’ shuttle diplomacy has given the South Asian nations a face-saving off-ramp after terror attacks.
The two states of India and Pakistan, created after a horrific and bloody partition in 1947, have much in common culturally but are now on very different trajectories strategically.
With more than 1.5 billion residents, India is a booming economic market now looking to be a global cultural force. The U.S. is India’s largest trading partner. To grasp the scope of India’s expanding cultural influence here simply look at the Met Gala’s embrace of Indian superstars like Shah Rukh Khan and the Kardashian’s highly publicized friendship with the ultra-wealthy Ambani family.
Meanwhile, Pakistan, a nation of 250 million people, has used its position at the crossroads of the Middle East and Central Asia to become a trading bridge to China and a base of U.S. national security operations. As recently as last month, while slashing foreign aid budgets elsewhere, the Trump administration continued a nearly $400 million military assistance program with Pakistan, as part of the decadeslong U.S.-Pakistan counterterrorism program.
U.S. leaders from across the political spectrum have supported strategic planning with both India and Pakistan, including high level exchanges on trade and defense. Between Strategic Dialogue deals and bilateral agreements, billions of dollars were invested over the years in making security and stability in South Asia the business of the United States.
Civil society and social institutions in both countries worked hard to move their military and political classes away from seeing each other as enemies worthy of destruction — and instead to operate as competitors. In 2006, after nearly 40 years of no direct transit, bus and rail routes between some cities in both countries resumed. Bollywood recently opened the door for Pakistani music legends and movie stars like Fawad Khan, while Pakistani-produced soap operas still draw millions of viewers from India. At the Wagah border, color guards from both sides put on a show for civilians, stamping their feet and posturing at each other every sunset. Cultural connections, known formally as “track three diplomacy,” have been the backbone of keeping the lid on conflict.
But unresolved tensions from the partition, in particular British colonial forces’ hasty carve-out of the Kashmir province, simmered throughout the decades, becoming easy tinder for conflict along religious and ethnic lines, all of which existed on this stretch of land once called Kashmir and now claimed by India, Pakistan and China. The attack on civilians in Pahalgam last month had people on both sides of the border taking to the internet to remind each other not to blame entire religions for terrorist attacks, with many using humor about their own poor circumstances to defuse tensions.
Missile and drone strikes are now being traded between India and Pakistan with the tacit approval of the United States.
But the military industrial complexes vowed revenge; missile and drone strikes are now being traded between India and Pakistan with the tacit approval of the United States, while local leaders’ calls for international mediation are being ignored.
In this new world order, when the United States steps back and washes its hands of its own history, China steps in. India is sending two messages with its response to the terror attack: that it will hit back at the source of militant operations and will seek to cut off the trade going through Pakistan. China is more than willing to defend its economic investments, providing military and propaganda support for Pakistan to respond.
This is the result of the United States stepping back from being the reasonable and responsible partner to other countries: old wounds become fresh, conflicts escalate, civilians are killed and might becomes right. We are now in a moment where tit-for-tat violence is building toward population centers coming under attack. What comes next in a conflict between two nuclear powers is everyone’s business.
