Abstract:
India and Pakistan are two nuclear-armed neighbors in the South Asian region whose bilateral
crises are frequently subject to regional and international intervention. Historically, the mediation
of U.S. President Richard Nixon and the strategies of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger during
the 1971 war underscored Pakistan’s reliance on U.S. foreign policy. Conversely, during the Cold
War, India maintained a distant relationship with the U.S. as a strategic ally of the Soviet Union,
with Indira Gandhi’s leadership often characterized by a unique anti-American stance. This study
examines the evolution of this dynamic, focusing on the U.S. intervention in the May 2025
India-Pakistan ceasefire. By 2025, the geopolitical landscape had fundamentally shifted within
a unipolar-influenced but transitioning global order, both nations have been absorbed into a U.S.
policy of complex engagement. Simultaneously, India’s rising economic and strategic status has
increased its influence within the Global South. However, the 2025 crisis sparked by India’s
"Operation Sindoor" counter-terrorism strikes and concluded via a U.S.-mediated ceasefire has
raised critical questions regarding Indian strategic autonomy. This paper argues that the recent
crisis demonstrated how the Narendra Modi-led government’s handling of the conflict provided
an opening for a superpower to influence Indian sovereignty. While India has traditionally
rejected third-party mediation, international assessments suggest that the indirect intervention of
the United States remains a decisive factor in preventing a full-scale nuclear escalation. Pakistan,
meanwhile, continues to largely welcome American and international diplomatic roles. Drawing
on Critical Realism and Neo-realism, this paper utilizes descriptive analysis and comparative
methodologies to argue that U.S. actions in 2025 were primarily driven by national interest,
regional stability, and nuclear deterrence rather than purely humanitarian objectives. The 2025
crisis serves as a pivotal event revealing both the limitations and opportunities of U.S. mediation,
concluding that while a temporary peace was achieved, substantive, long-term resolution remains
elusive under current U.S. leadership.
