A dangerous spiral of retaliation

India's air strikes in response to a Kashmir attack risk triggering wider conflict with nuclear-armed Pakistan.

A truck carries an army tank along a road in Muridke, about 30 kilometers from Lahore, on May 7, 2025. Photo by Murtaz Ali/AFP

By The Editorial Board

India-Pakistan tensions have reached a dangerous new high after New Delhi launched air strikes on what it described as “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The escalation follows the deadly shooting of 26 Indian and foreign tourists in Pahalgam last month, an attack Indian authorities blame on Pakistan-based militants. While the full implications of the cross-border military exchange are still unfolding, the world watches anxiously as two nuclear-armed neighbors inch perilously closer to open conflict.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, facing a surge in public outrage, deemed a forceful military response necessary. In announcing the air strikes, India’s foreign secretary emphasized the country’s “compulsion both to deter and pre-empt” future attacks. According to Indian officials, nine militant camps were struck in operations that were framed as “precision” strikes aimed at minimizing civilian casualties. The targets reportedly spanned deep into Pakistan’s Punjab province, marking a significant escalation beyond the 2019 Balakot air strikes.

Pakistan, however, has rejected India’s narrative. Its military reported that 26 Pakistani citizens were killed and another 46 injured in the strikes. The Pakistani government has denied any involvement in the Pahalgam massacre and criticized India for failing to provide public evidence or allow an independent investigation. Islamabad’s immediate military response remains unclear, but officials say the country’s armed forces have been authorized to respond “at a time, place, and manner of its choosing.”

Should Pakistan choose to retaliate forcefully, the region risks spiraling into the most serious conflict in decades. Pakistani sources claim they have already downed five Indian jets and a combat drone in response, though these claims remain unverified. If true, this would mark a significant escalation compared to the 2019 skirmishes. Yet, some analysts suggest that by limiting its strikes to military targets and avoiding civilian casualties, Pakistan might claim proportional retaliation—potentially avoiding a cycle of uncontrolled escalation.

Nevertheless, history and geopolitics offer no comfort. Both India and Pakistan have fought multiple wars since their independence in 1947, with Kashmir remaining a flashpoint. The memory of prior conflicts—such as the Kargil War of 1999 and the Pulwama-Balakot standoff of 2019—still casts a long shadow. What makes today’s India-Pakistan tensions even more perilous is the nuclear dimension. Both nations possess large and growing nuclear arsenals, raising the stakes of miscalculation or rapid escalation beyond control.

It’s important to recognize that the mutual knowledge of each other’s nuclear capabilities has so far served as a deterrent to full-blown war. Indian and Pakistani military doctrines include contingency plans, but leaders on both sides understand that a nuclear exchange would lead to catastrophic consequences not just for the subcontinent but globally. This awareness, paradoxically, injects a kind of strategic restraint into the conflict—though it remains a fragile and risky balancing act.

The economic interests of both nations should also serve as a strong incentive to de-escalate. For India, currently one of the world’s fastest-growing major economies, a prolonged conflict could derail its ambitions to become a leading global economic power. For Pakistan, the stakes are arguably even higher. Still recovering from years of political and economic instability, it has only recently begun to attract renewed investor interest. Pakistan’s finance minister was in London just this week courting foreign capital—hardly the time for a military confrontation.

International stakeholders must now act decisively to prevent further escalation. President Donald Trump, in his second term, has labeled the air strikes “a shame” and expressed hope that the hostilities “end very quickly.” Yet his administration’s response has been largely rhetorical. Given the gravity of the situation, far more active diplomatic engagement is urgently needed.

Trump’s first term saw active U.S. shuttle diplomacy in several international flashpoints, but his second term has thus far shown diminished commitment to multilateral conflict resolution. The India-Pakistan conflict now serves as an early test of whether Washington can still exert stabilizing influence in a polarized world.

France, a growing defense partner for India, could also play a constructive role. Paris recently inked new defense and economic agreements with New Delhi, giving it both leverage and responsibility. Similarly, the United Kingdom—India’s former colonial ruler and a major economic partner—has a chance to assert its diplomatic relevance. Britain’s newly signed trade deal with India offers it the platform to encourage restraint and dialogue.

Meanwhile, China, which borders Kashmir and maintains a deep economic and strategic partnership with Pakistan, has an outsized role to play. Beijing could encourage Islamabad to avoid overreaction, especially as it seeks to protect its Belt and Road investments in Pakistan, including the multi-billion-dollar China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). In this intricate diplomatic puzzle, every actor with influence must now act with urgency.

The opacity surrounding the evidence of Pakistan’s alleged involvement in the Pahalgam massacre only adds to the tension. India’s refusal to publicly share proof or allow third-party scrutiny fuels skepticism, both domestically and internationally. If New Delhi’s intention is to rally international support and justify its actions, transparency is essential.

Similarly, Pakistan’s military claims need independent verification. In an era of misinformation and heightened nationalism, clarity and credibility are crucial to avoiding misjudgments. Both countries must engage in direct communication, possibly through existing backchannels or with international mediation, to clarify red lines and prevent accidental escalation.

As India-Pakistan tensions threaten to spiral into a full-scale crisis, the path forward must be grounded in realism, restraint, and responsibility. Both nations have legitimate security concerns, but military solutions will only deepen the cycle of violence. The tragedy in Pahalgam must be thoroughly investigated, and perpetrators held accountable—but through evidence-based and internationally accepted mechanisms.

The world cannot afford another prolonged crisis between India and Pakistan. As both countries stand at a crossroads, the decisions made in the coming days could shape the region’s stability for years to come. It is time for their leaders—and the global community—to prioritize peace over pride, and diplomacy over destruction.