The escalating India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir, sparked by a terror attack and India’s subsequent strikes on Pakistani territory, has reached a critical juncture. Historically, such crises prompted robust US diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions and prevent a wider war. However, the Trump administration’s passive response in 2025 raises questions about why the United States is not taking a leading role in cooling tempers.
Trump’s Reluctance to Mediate
President Donald Trump’s response to the crisis has been notably lukewarm. Following India’s missile strikes on Pakistan-held Kashmir and mainland Pakistan on May 6-7, 2025, which killed 31 Pakistani civilians, Trump offered only vague remarks: “It’s a shame… I just hope it ends quickly.” His subsequent offer to mediate lacked enthusiasm, stating, “If I can do anything to help, I will be there.” This contrasts sharply with past US interventions, such as Bill Clinton’s role in the 1999 Kargil conflict or Mike Pompeo’s efforts in 2019, which helped avert nuclear escalation.
Trump’s second term has prioritized transactional diplomacy over traditional coalition-building. His focus on leveraging US economic and military power for immediate gains—evidenced by deals like pressuring Ukraine for rare earth metals or proposing a “Riviera of the Middle East” in Gaza—leaves little room for complex, long-term mediation in Kashmir, where no obvious financial incentives exist. As Tim Willasey-Wilsey of the Royal United Services Institute noted, “We now have a president who says he doesn’t want to be the policeman of the world.”
A Shift in US Foreign Policy
The Trump administration has abandoned the traditional US foreign policy playbook, creating a vacuum in global leadership. Unlike predecessors who invested months in confidence-building diplomacy—such as Jimmy Carter’s Israel-Egypt peace accords or Clinton’s resolution of the Yugoslav wars—Trump shows little interest in such efforts. His administration’s limited bandwidth is stretched thin by ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, where diplomatic initiatives led by envoy Steve Witkoff have yielded minimal progress.
The Kashmir crisis demands sustained, multilateral engagement, but Trump’s worldview treats allies and adversaries alike as pieces in a zero-sum game. His reported expansionist ambitions toward Greenland, Canada, and Panama further undermine his credibility as a neutral mediator in one of the world’s most intractable territorial disputes.
Why US Strategic Tilt Toward India?
A significant factor in the US’s inaction is its growing strategic alignment with India. Since the 1999 Kargil crisis, every US administration has deepened ties with India, viewing it as a counterweight to China and a rising economic power. Trump’s personal and political affinity for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a fellow nationalist, further tilts the scales. Milan Vaishnav of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace highlighted this shift, noting, “India is one of the most important strategic partners for the United States, whereas Pakistan’s importance… has really declined.”
The terror attack on Indian tourists in Indian-occupied Kashmir, killing six, has garnered international sympathy for India, despite concerns over Modi’s crackdown on Muslims in the region. India’s narrative, blaming Pakistan without evidence, has gained traction in Washington, reducing US pressure on India to de-escalate. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s denial of harboring terror camps and its call for restraint have been overshadowed.
Declining US Leverage Over Pakistan
The US’s ability to influence Pakistan has waned since the end of their uneasy alliance during the war on terror and the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Pakistan’s strengthened partnership with China, exemplified by the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), has shifted its geopolitical alignment. With each South Asian rival backed by a superpower—India by the US and Pakistan by China—traditional US leverage is diminished, complicating mediation efforts.
Pakistan’s economic challenges, compounded by reliance on creditors like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, offer potential leverage for restraint, as Willasey-Wilsey suggested. However, these nations have yet to take a leading role, and the US shows no inclination to coordinate such efforts.
A Fractured Global Order
The India-Pakistan crisis unfolds in a fragmented global landscape, where traditional diplomatic strategies are less effective. Qatar, a Sunni Muslim-majority state like Pakistan, has engaged both sides, with its Prime Minister holding talks with Indian and Pakistani officials. However, Qatar’s condemnation of the tourist attack and perceived snub of Pakistan, as reported by Indian media, complicates its role as a neutral mediator. Other potential mediators, such as the UN or regional powers, face similar challenges in a polarized world.
The absence of US leadership leaves a void that no single actor has filled. Past US interventions in Kashmir relied on its ability to rally international support, but Trump’s “America First” approach prioritizes domestic and unilateral interests over global stability.
Implications for South Asia
The Kashmir conflict, rooted in the 1947 partition by colonial Britain, remains a flashpoint with nuclear risks. While both nations have matured as nuclear powers, reducing fears of catastrophic escalation, the current crisis—marked by India’s strikes and Pakistan’s vow to retaliate—demands urgent attention. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif warned of his nation’s resilience, stating, “This is a nation of brave people,” signaling readiness to defend its sovereignty.
Without US mediation, the risk of further escalation grows, particularly as Modi faces domestic pressure to respond to the loss of an Indian jet and the tourist attack. The Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad (ISSI) and other regional think tanks have called for dialogue, but the lack of a global convenor hinders progress.
A Missed Opportunity for Leadership
The Trump administration’s reluctance to lead an emergency effort to ease the India-Pakistan crisis reflects a broader retreat from global leadership. Driven by a transactional mindset, a strategic tilt toward India, and diminished leverage over Pakistan, the US has left the Kashmir conflict to fester. As the world watches for the next escalatory step, the absence of robust US diplomacy underscores the challenges of resolving conflicts in a multipolar era.
