Commentary: India and Pakistan are on a global charm offensive to tell their version of the conflict
LONDON: In the past fortnight, multi-party parliamentary delegations from India and Pakistan have stopped in London as part of a world tour. Having had the opportunity to interact with both delegations, one thing becomes abundantly clear: Dialogue is a dead end (for now).
They were essentially two sides of the same coin, each seeking to make the case for their nation's narrative following the brief, 87-hour conflict in May.
Both sought to claim the moral high ground while painting the other side as the aggressor. Each resented any parallels or equivalency drawn between their positions. According to India, its actions were a response to the terror attack in Pahalgam that claimed the lives of 26 civilians. According to Pakistan, its military action was triggered by India's military operation, while arguing that New Delhi has failed to offer the smoking gun of Pakistani complicity in the terror attack.
Both trumpeted their battlefield successes while downplaying their losses. The Pakistani side touted the loss of Indian aircraft in the initial military exchange, while the Indian side downplayed this, noting that such losses should be expected as part of any military campaign (and refusing to admit to any specific losses). India also played up the strength of its air defences in repelling Pakistan's counterattacks and the concomitant weakness of Pakistan's air defences.
Both emphasised red lines. For India, another terror attack would trigger a war. For Pakistan, any violation of the Indus Water Treaty would do the same. The Indian delegation noted that India had dropped its previous 'hesitation' of deploying hard power, while the Pakistani delegation accused India of 'dragging water onto the battlefield'.
Each side offered differing conditionalities on returning to the negotiating table: New Delhi will only discuss the issue of terrorism and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, while Islamabad wants to focus on the water treaty and Indian-administered Kashmir.
Both countries are seeking to internationalise the conflict, but in different ways. For India, the emphasis is on framing Pakistan as the epicentre of global terrorism (with reminders of Osama bin Laden being killed in Pakistan in 2011 and Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl being beheaded in Pakistan in 2002). For Pakistan, the emphasis is on getting third party 'facilitators' rather than 'mediators' (given New Delhi's rejection of third-party mediation).
AMERICA'S DEFAULT RESPONSE
Ultimately, both countries face similar dilemmas in getting their message across to the international community.
For India, the global war on terrorism has lost the resonance it once had, making it difficult for New Delhi to make the case to the world of the severity of Pakistan's threat to global stability.
For Pakistan, the effort to get United States or Western involvement in India-Pakistan hostilities and the issue of Kashmir is an uphill battle given the plethora of international (and domestic) crises presently confronting Western capitals.
This will not stop Islamabad from trying to do so as demonstrated by Army Chief Asim Munir's visit to Washington this week, which demonstrates Pakistan's ability to leverage global issues – from the Sino-US rapprochement in the late 1960s and early 1970s to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and into the 1980s and the US-led 'War on Terror' in the 2000s – to advance its primary foreign policy objective of strengthening its position vis-a-vis India.
Now Islamabad is seeking to do so again by leveraging the Trump administration's efforts to obtain Islamabad's support in the conflict between Iran and Israel (given that Pakistan shares a border with the former).
Trump's 'sphere of influence' worldview makes it unlikely that the United States will play any substantive or lasting role in South Asia.
While Trump claims to have applied pressure on both countries to initiate a ceasefire on May 10 – which has been denied by India – his initial nonchalant response (noting that both countries would sort it out 'one way or the other', which was supplemented by Vice President JD Vance's comment that the conflict was 'fundamentally none of our business') reveals what is likely to be the default response to future hostilities, as long as they stay below the threshold of a nuclear conflict.
South Asia has lost the strategic significance it once had following the US-NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021.
TALKING PAST EACH OTHER
In this context, the world tours by parliamentarians from India and Pakistan appear more focused on appeasing domestic political constituencies than any genuine effort aimed at shifting global public opinion. There was more emphasis on dictating each country's position rather than engaging in a genuine dialogue.
All this limits the prospects for any peace process.
The Pakistani delegation pushed for the resumption of a 'comprehensive dialogue', but what would both sides discuss when they are essentially talking past each other? They cannot even agree on the facts of what happened, accusing the other of misinformation, hyper-nationalistic rhetoric and religious extremism.
The Indian side accused Pakistan of employing 'terrorism as an instrument of state policy' while the Pakistani side claimed that the Modi government wants to 'eradicate' India's Muslims. This makes it impossible for both countries to sit down together.
NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS WORKING
If there is any silver lining it is that among the world's flashpoints, India-Pakistan hostilities still seem relatively contained despite the bad blood in the bilateral relationship. The short four-day conflict and emphasis on precision-strike operations contrasts with conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East where there has been significant collateral damage and prolonged and expansive military operations across multiple theatres.
This shows that nuclear deterrence is working in limiting the threshold of violence, although this threshold is being tested and eroded as both countries find new ways of targeting each other, from sponsoring irregular separatist/terrorist outfits to developing drone and cyber warfare capabilities.
As a result, South Asia is in an interesting position, a region that is the most vulnerable to a nuclear exchange, and hence, ironically the most restrained of the world's major flashpoints.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
34 minutes ago
- CNA
Strikes on Iran mark Trump's biggest, and riskiest, foreign policy gamble: Analysts
WASHINGTON: With his unprecedented decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites, directly joining Israel's air attack on its regional arch-foe, US President Donald Trump has done something he had long vowed to avoid - intervene militarily in a major foreign war. The dramatic US strike, including the targeting of Iran's most heavily fortified nuclear installation deep underground, marks the biggest foreign policy gamble of Trump's two presidencies and one fraught with risks and unknowns. Trump, who insisted on Saturday (Jun 21) that Iran must now make peace or face further attacks, could provoke Tehran into retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil artery, attacking US military bases and allies in the Middle East, stepping up its missile barrage on Israel and activating proxy groups against American and Israeli interests worldwide, analysts said. Such moves could escalate into a broader, more protracted conflict than Trump had envisioned, evoking echoes of the 'forever wars' that America fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he had derided as 'stupid' and promised never to be dragged into. 'The Iranians are seriously weakened and degraded in their military capabilities,' said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for Democratic and Republican administrations. 'But they have all sorts of asymmetric ways that they can respond ... This is not going to end quick.' In the lead-up to the bombing that he announced late on Saturday, Trump had vacillated between threats of military action and appeals for renewed negotiation to persuade Iran to reach a deal to dismantle its nuclear programme. A senior White House official said that once Trump was convinced that Tehran had no interest in reaching a nuclear agreement, he decided the strikes were 'the right thing to do'. Trump gave the go-ahead once he was assured of a 'high probability of success,' the official said – a determination reached after more than a week of Israeli air attacks on Iran's nuclear and military facilities paved the way for the US to deliver the potentially crowning blow. NUCLEAR THREAT REMAINS Trump touted the "great success" of the strikes, which he said included the use of massive "bunker-buster bombs" on the main site at Fordow. But some experts suggested that while Iran's nuclear programme may have been set back for many years, the threat may be far from over. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon, saying its programme is for purely peaceful purposes. 'In the long term, military action is likely to push Iran to determine nuclear weapons are necessary for deterrence and that Washington is not interested in diplomacy,' the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan US-based organisation that advocates for arms control legislation, said in a statement. 'Military strikes alone cannot destroy Iran's extensive nuclear knowledge. The strikes will set Iran's programme back, but at the cost of strengthening Tehran's resolve to reconstitute its sensitive nuclear activities,' the group said. Eric Lob, assistant professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University, said Iran's next move remains an open question and suggested that among its forms of retaliation could be to hit 'soft targets' of the US and Israel inside and outside the region. But he also said there was a possibility that Iran could return to the negotiating table – 'though they would be doing so in an even weaker position' – or seek a diplomatic off-ramp. In the immediate aftermath of the US strikes, however, Iran showed little appetite for concessions. Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said it would not allow development of its 'national industry' to be stopped, and an Iranian state television commentator said every US citizen or military member in the region would not be legitimate targets. Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, posted on X: 'Trump indicated this is now the time for peace. It's unclear and unlikely the Iranians will see it the same way. This is more likely to open a new chapter of the 46-year-old US-Iran war than conclude it.' "REGIME CHANGE" Some analysts suggested that Trump, whose administration has previously disavowed any aim of dislodging the Iranian leadership, could be drawn into seeking 'regime change' if Tehran carries out major reprisals or moves to build a nuclear weapon. That, in turn, would bring additional risks. 'Beware mission creep, aiming for regime change and democratization campaigns,' said Laura Blumenfeld, a Middle East analyst at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies in Washington. 'You'll find the bones of many failed US moral missions buried in Middle East sands.' Jonathan Panikoff, a former US deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East, said Iran's leadership would quickly engage in 'disproportionate attacks' if it felt its survival was imperilled. But Tehran will also have to be mindful of the consequences, he said. While actions such as closing the Strait of Hormuz would pose problems for Trump with the resulting higher oil prices and potential US inflationary impact, it would also hurt China, one of Iran's few powerful allies. At the same time, Trump is already facing strong pushback from congressional Democrats against the Iran attack and will also have to contend with opposition from the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican MAGA base. Trump, who faced no major international crisis in his first term, is now embroiled in one just six months into his second. Even if he hopes US military involvement can be limited in time and scope, the history of such conflicts often carries unintended consequences for American presidents. Trump's slogan of 'peace through strength' will certainly be tested as never before, especially with his opening of a new military front after failing to meet his campaign promises to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza. 'Trump is back in the war business,' said Richard Gowan, US director at the International Crisis Group. 'I am not sure anyone in Moscow, Tehran or Beijing ever believed his spiel that he is a peacemaker. It always looked more like a campaign phrase than a strategy."
CNA
5 hours ago
- CNA
US forces strike Iran nuclear sites, Trump says Fordow gone
WASHINGTON: US forces struck three Iranian nuclear sites in a "very successful attack", President Donald Trump said on Saturday (Jun 21), adding that the crown jewel of Tehran's nuclear program, Fordow, is gone. After days of deliberation and two weeks before his self-imposed deadline, Trump's decision to join Israel's military campaign against its major rival Iran represents a major escalation of the conflict. "This was an amazing success tonight," Trump told Reuters in a telephone interview. "They should make peace immediately or they'll get hit again." He had earlier posted on Truth Social that all US planes were safely on their way home, and he congratulated "our great American Warriors." He was due to deliver a televised Oval Office address at 10pm local time (10am Singapore time, Sunday). CBS News reported that the US reached out to Iran diplomatically on Saturday to say the strikes are all the U.S. plans and it does not aim for regime change. In his late-night address, NBC News said, Trump is expected to say he is not currently planning more strikes inside Iran. Trump said U.S. forces struck Iran's three principal nuclear sites: Natanz, Esfahan and Fordow. He told Fox News six bunker-buster bombs were dropped on Fordow, while 30 Tomahawk missiles were fired against other nuclear sites. US B-2 bombers were involved in the strikes, a US official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. "A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow," Trump posted. "Fordow is gone." "IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR," he added. Reuters had reported earlier on Saturday the movement of the B-2 bombers, which can be equipped to carry massive bombs that experts say would be needed to strike Fordow, which is buried under a mountain south of Tehran. An Iranian official, cited by Tasnim news agency, confirmed that part of the Fordow site was attacked by "enemy airstrikes". Israel's public broadcaster Kan cited an Israeli official saying the country was "in full coordination" with Washington on the US attack. A White House official said Trump spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the strikes. The strikes came as Israel and Iran have been engaged in more than a week of aerial combat that has resulted in deaths and injuries in both countries. DIPLOMACY UNSUCCESSFUL Israel launched the attacks on Iran saying that it wanted to remove any chance of Tehran developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Diplomatic efforts by Western nations to stop the hostilities have been unsuccessful. In recent days, Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans have argued that Trump must receive permission from the US Congress before committing the US military to any combat against Iran. Republican Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi applauded the operation but cautioned that the US now faced "very serious choices ahead." Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch, a Republican, said that despite the heavy U.S. bombings over Iran, "This war is Israel's war not our war." He added, "There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran." One Republican lawmaker, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, simply said, "This is not constitutional." Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia said the US public "is overwhelmingly opposed to the US waging war on Iran" and accused Trump of displaying "horrible judgment". Israel launched attacks on Jun 13, saying Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Israel is widely assumed to possess nuclear weapons, which it neither confirms nor denies. At least 430 people have been killed and 3,500 injured in Iran since Israel began its attacks, Iranian state-run Nour News said, citing the health ministry. In Israel, 24 civilians have been killed by Iranian missile attacks, according to local authorities, in the worst conflict between the longtime enemies. More than 450 Iranian missiles have been fired towards Israel, according to the Israeli prime minister's office.
CNA
5 hours ago
- CNA
US forces bomb Iran nuclear sites, Trump says Fordow gone
WASHINGTON: US forces struck three Iranian nuclear sites in a "very successful attack", President Donald Trump said on Saturday (Jun 21), adding that the crown jewel of Tehran's nuclear program, Fordow, is gone. After days of deliberation, Trump's decision to join Israel's military campaign against its major rival Iran represents a major escalation of the conflict. "All planes are safely on their way home," Trump said in a post on Truth Social, and he congratulated "our great American Warriors." He was due to deliver a televised Oval Office address at 10pm local time (10am Singapore time, Sunday). CBS News reported that the US reached out to Iran diplomatically on Saturday to say the strikes are all the US plans and that regime change efforts are not planned. Trump said US forces struck Iran's three principal nuclear sites: Natanz, Esfahan and Fordow. He told Fox News six bunker buster bombs were dropped on Fordow, while 30 Tomahawk missiles were fired against other nuclear sites. US B-2 bombers were involved in the strikes, a US official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. "A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow," Trump posted. "Fordow is gone." "IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR," he added. Reuters had reported earlier on Saturday the movement of the B-2 bombers, which can be equipped to carry massive bombs that experts say would be needed to strike Fordow, which is buried under a mountain. An Iranian official, cited by Tasnim news agency, confirmed that part of the Fordow site was attacked by "enemy airstrikes". Israel's public broadcaster Kan cited an Israeli official saying the country was "in full coordination" with Washington on the US attack. A White House official said Trump spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the strikes. The strikes came as Israel and Iran have been engaged in more than a week of aerial combat that has resulted in deaths and injuries in both countries. Israel launched the attacks on Iran, saying that it wanted to remove any chance of Tehran developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Diplomatic efforts by Western nations to stop the hostilities have been unsuccessful. In recent days, Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans have argued that Trump must receive permission from the US Congress before committing the US military to any combat against Iran. Israeli military officials said earlier on Saturday that they had completed another series of strikes in southwestern Iran, having targeted dozens of military targets. Israel launched attacks on Jun 13, saying Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Israel is widely assumed to possess nuclear weapons, which it neither confirms nor denies. At least 430 people have been killed and 3,500 injured in Iran since Israel began its attacks, Iranian state-run Nour News said, citing the health ministry. In Israel, 24 civilians have been killed by Iranian missile attacks, according to local authorities, in the worst conflict between the longtime enemies. More than 450 Iranian missiles have been fired towards Israel, according to the Israeli prime minister's office.
