Op Sindoor shows India's success in carving out space for conventional conflict below nuclear threshold
Written by Arun Sahgal and Ambuj Sahu
After three days of intense, technology-driven conflict — marked by missile strikes, drone incursions, air combat, and artillery exchanges — the kinetic phase of the India-Pakistan standoff has wound down to a temporary pause following a declared ceasefire. It is now time to take a preliminary call on both the causes and the dynamics of the crisis and situate its implications on the nuclear equation between both countries.
First, the crisis demonstrated India's technological and tactical prowess: The capability to execute precision strikes inside Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) on both terrorist bases and deep-set targets of air bases and air infrastructure, along with the robustness of indigenous air defence systems. Yet, despite these operational gains, the most consequential outcome of Operation Sindoor lies elsewhere.
The principal takeaway is India's success in carving out space for conventional conflict below the nuclear threshold — taking the battle to the Pakistani mainland, inflicting substantial damage on military assets, while simultaneously averting nuclear escalation. For years, New Delhi has grappled with the challenge of responding to cross-border terrorism under the shadow of Pakistan's nuclear doctrine, which absurdly narrowed the threshold for conflict and effectively neutralised India's punitive options. This time was different. As the Prime Minister asserted in his address to the nation, India, in the future, will fiercely retaliate against all acts of terror and not capitulate to Pakistan's nuclear blackmail. This carries profound implications for any future India-Pakistan crisis.
Pakistan has long employed its so-called doctrine of Full Spectrum Deterrence to paralyse India's strategic calculus by asserting escalation dominance across every rung of the conflict ladder. Lt General Khalid Kidwai, former Director General of Pakistan's Strategic Plans Division (SPD) and now an advisor to Pakistan's National Command Authority (NCA), articulated four thresholds for deterrence failure: Spatial (loss of territory), military (destruction of key assets and air bases), economic (threats to the national economy), and political (internal destabilisation).
Under this doctrinal umbrella, Pakistan pursued cross-border terrorism with impunity, leveraging the threat of nuclear retaliation to prevent Indian military responses. This posture rested on two flawed assumptions: First, that Pakistan had both the capability and confidence to respond to any calibrated Indian retaliation; second, after the initial responses, India would face a dilemma — either escalate dangerously close to the nuclear threshold or seek an off-ramp.
Any premature de-escalation by India, in this calculus, would deliver a propaganda victory to Pakistan and place India on the back foot. Pakistan believed India would be forced into higher-magnitude escalation to preserve its doctrine of punitive response. It would ultimately risk the breakdown of conventional deterrence and enable Pakistan to threaten the use of low-yield nuclear weapons under its Full Spectrum Deterrence. This framework, to a considerable extent, succeeded in drawing international attention each time India contemplated higher-order military action.
Operation Sindoor shattered this self-serving narrative. On May 7, India executed precision strikes against nine terror camps located within Pakistan and PoK. In retaliation, Pakistan launched a barrage of drone, missile, and artillery strikes against both civilian and military infrastructure. India's air defence systems — refined since the standoff with China four years ago — held firm, achieving a 99 per cent kill rate by successfully intercepting and neutralising most incoming threats.
At the second rung, on the morning of May 9, India destroyed Pakistan's Chinese-origin HQ-9B air defence system stationed in Lahore. Pakistan escalated its drone and missile attacks, targeting 26 sites and cities along the western border. India's counter-response was immediate and overwhelming: Massive retaliatory strikes were launched across both the International Border and the Line of Control. By the morning of May 10, the Indian Air Force had decimated major Pakistani air bases, including high-value targets such as Nur Khan (just 10 kilometres from Islamabad) and Sargodha (reportedly housing nuclear-capable F-16s). India had thus shifted its posture from a proportionate to a clearly disproportionate response, effectively dismantling Pakistan's nuclear doctrine.
Furthermore, a reported strike near the Kirna Hills — suspected of housing Pakistan's nuclear assets in underground silos — caused panic within the NCA, revealing the vulnerability of its command-and-control infrastructure. The sudden announcement of an NCA meeting (later denied) and possible orders for nuclear weapon deployment (unverified) were acts of brinkmanship, aimed at signalling proximity to the nuclear threshold.
What stands out starkly is India's determination to deal a decisive blow to terror infrastructure and convey unequivocally that such acts will be met with overwhelming force — that no terrorist or their handler will find sanctuary. Subsequent strikes on Pakistan's air defences, air bases, and critical infrastructure across its territory showcased India's intent to degrade military capabilities while exposing the hollowness of Pakistan's 'First Use' doctrine. The Balakot strike of 2019 had already exposed the cracks in Pakistan's nuclear bluff; Operation Sindoor has now widened that breach and tested its strategic boundaries.
In summary, there are four takeaways. One, India called out Pakistan's nuclear doctrine effectively, ascending multiple rungs on the escalation ladder without provoking nuclear retaliation. Two, it established a doctrine of deterrence by punishment, that any future terrorist attack will exact severe costs. Three, India has drawn a new red line — acts of terrorism will now be treated as acts of war. This framing may enhance deterrence by denial. Four, the non-military thresholds of full spectrum doctrine are breached. Not only do the Indus Waters Treaty and other economic levers exercised after the Pahalgam attack remain untouched after the ceasefire, but India has also left the door ajar for testing economic and political thresholds in future crises.
Pakistan had leveraged nuclear brinkmanship to establish a perceived parity with India on the global stage. But the world must now acknowledge Pakistan as a haven for transnational terrorist groups and recognise its reckless nuclear posturing for what it is: A threat to regional and global stability. An effective Indian deterrent now rests on communicating one clear message: Nuclear threats will no longer serve as a shield for state-sponsored terrorism.
Arun Sahgal is former founder-director, Net Assessment, HQ Integrated Defence Staff. Ambuj Sahu is a PhD Candidate at Indiana University Bloomington
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
15 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
How the Israel-Iran conflict could impact India
On June 13, the Israeli military began striking what it claimed were nuclear targets and other sites in Iran, with the aim of stalling Tehran's nuclear programme. Iran retaliated with missile attacks on Israel. The official toll in Iran is at least 430 so far, while at least 25 persons have died in Israel. The continued exchange of fire has led to concerns of a wider regional conflict that the United States could get drawn into. Washington is an ally of Israel and acts as a guarantor of the country's security. Tehran has rejected US President Donald Trump's demand for an ' unconditional surrender ' and vowed to fight back. The prevailing uncertainty has led to a spike in global oil prices. The price of benchmark Brent crude had jumped to $78 per barrel by Thursday from $69 per barrel on June 12, the day before the conflict began. But the spike was not because of Israeli military's strikes reportedly on the Shahran oil depot in Tehran and one of Iran's largest refineries in Shahr Rey. These actions have little impact on Iranian energy exports. Instead, the spike in prices primarily stem from concerns about the possible blocking of the Strait of Hormuz amid the conflict. The closure could threaten global energy security. The chokepoint The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterbody that connects the Gulf to the Arabian Sea. In 2024, an average 20 million barrels of oil was transported through the strait every day. That was about one-fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption. This makes the Strait of Hormuz one of the most strategically important chokepoints. Iran has in the past threatened to block the waterbody in retaliation to pressure from the West. On Sunday, the Iranian Parliament decided that the Strait of Hormuz should be closed, state-run Press TV quoted lawmaker Major General Kowsari as saying. The final decision will be taken by the Supreme National Security Council, the member of the parliamentary national security commission added. Unlike other chokepoints such as the Suez Canal or the Strait of Malacca, there is no practical alternative for fuel supplies to bypass the Strait of Hormuz in large volumes. Cargo ships are already sailing closer to the Omani coast and have been advised by maritime agencies and governments to avoid Iranian waters in the Strait of Hormuz, Reuters reported on Wednesday. An attempt to shutter the strait will not go unchallenged because of the regional powers' strategic interest in keeping fuel supply open. But the ensuing military confrontation may still disrupt supplies to some extent. India's interest When Tel Aviv and Tehran last exchanged missile fire in October, former Indian diplomat Navdeep Suri had told Scroll that if the conflict escalated and became an all-out war, Iran, feeling threatened, had the capacity to block the Strait of Hormuz. In that case, New Delhi will be staring at a scenario that will 'directly impact India's energy security', he had said. 'A very large chunk of India's energy supplies come from there and that could really be serious for us,' explained Suri, who served as India's ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. 'It's in our interest that it doesn't get out of hand.' India consumes 5.5 million barrels of crude per day for refining. Of this, 1.5 million barrels come through the Strait of Hormuz, according to Union Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri. If the strait gets blocked, Amena Bakr, the head of Middle East and OPEC+ insights at analytics firm Kpler, told CNBC International on June 13 that oil prices could jump to three-digits. To put the impact of such a scenario into context: a spike of every $10 per barrel drives up inflation in India by about 0.5%, financial services company Morgan Stanley had estimated in April 2024. But Puri told NDTV that closing the strait was not in Iran's own interest. Yet, he said, India remained comfortably placed to meet its fuel needs, adding that New Delhi can tap into alternative supplies if needed. Here is a summary of the week's other top stories. Countering Trump's claims. Prime Minister Narendra Modi told United States President Donald Trump that India will never accept mediation to resolve tensions with Pakistan. The topic came up during a phone call when Trump asked for the details about India's military strikes – codenamed Operation Sindoor – on Pakistan in May, said Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri. Trump was told that India had agreed to the ceasefire only on Islamabad's request, said Misri. The 'halt to military action was directly between India and Pakistan', the foreign secretary quoted Modi as having reiterated. The call between the two leaders came against the backdrop of the US president repeatedly claiming that he helped settle the tensions between India and Pakistan. New Delhi has rejected Trump's assertions. , writes Rohan Venkataramakrishnan A thaw in relations. India and Canada agreed to reinstate high commissioners in each other's capitals. This was announced after Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney met on the sidelines of the Group of Seven summit. Other diplomatic steps 'to restore stability in the relationship' will 'follow in due course', said New Delhi. In October, New Delhi and Ottawa expelled several diplomats amid frosty bilateral relations. Ties between India and Canada strained in September 2023 after Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister at the time, told his country's Parliament that intelligence agencies were actively pursuing 'credible allegations' tying agents of the Indian government to the murder of Khalistani separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada. New Delhi has rejected Canada's allegations. The language debate. Opposition leaders criticised Union Home Minister Amit Shah for saying that those who speak English in India will soon feel ashamed. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said that English was 'not a barrier, but a bridge', adding that the language provides employment and boosts people's self-confidence. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam MP Kanimozhi said to Shah that 'the only thing to be ashamed of is imposing your will on the people and trying to destroy the pluralism of India'. Shah's comment on Thursday came against the backdrop of several state governments and regional parties accusing the Union government of imposing Hindi through the National Education Policy's three-language formula. Also on Scroll this week for a curated selection of the news that matters throughout the day, and a round-up of major developments in India and around the world every evening. What you won't get: spam.
News18
16 minutes ago
- News18
Nobel Recommendation To Condemnation: How Iran Strikes Strain Pakistan's Ties With US
Last Updated: The country, which had recommended US President Donald Trump's name for the 2026 Nobel Peace prize on June 21, condemned the strikes on Tehran on June 22 The United States' strikes on the nuclear sites in Iran is a major diplomatic setback for Pakistan. The country, which had recommended US President Donald Trump's name for the 2026 Nobel Peace prize on June 21, condemned the strikes on Tehran on June 22. 'Pakistan condemns the US attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities which follow the series of attacks by Israel. We are gravely concerned at the possible further escalation of tensions in the region," said Pakistan's Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar in an official statement. — Ishaq Dar (@MIshaqDar50) June 22, 2025 WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 21? Pakistan lauded Trump for his role in negotiating the May 2025 India-Pakistan ceasefire, a move they believed demonstrated his commitment to peace. India has maintained that the US had no role in putting Operation Sindoor on halt and that the ceasefire was agreed upon based on Pakistan's request. Pakistan's Army Chief Asim Munir's White House meeting with Trump on June 18 also signalled closer ties. 'Pakistan's nomination of Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize was not just a symbolic gesture. It was a strategic effort to secure the U.S. support on key issues such as the Kashmir conflict and economic cooperation in emerging sectors like cryptocurrency and critical minerals," said intelligence sources. Analysts said Pakistan was also attempting to appeal to Trump's ego in the hope of dissuading him from taking aggressive action against Iran, thus maintaining regional stability and gaining leverage in their ongoing diplomatic efforts. WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 22? The U.S. strikes on June 22 have put Pakistan in a precarious position. The country, which shares a 900-km border with Iran, relies heavily on Tehran for trade, security, and the stability of its Shia community, which constitutes 15-20% of its population. The escalation threatens to destabilise Balochistan, a region already plagued by separatist movements, and could potentially embolden Sunni jihadist groups like Jaish al-Adl. While Tehran has refrained from publicly criticising Pakistan, the trust between the two neighbours is undoubtedly strained. Indian intelligence sources said Pakistan's diplomatic manoeuvre with the Nobel nomination was fraught with risks, given its significant dependence on Iran. The fallout from the U.S. strikes underscores Islamabad's limited influence in the broader U.S.-Iran conflict and highlights the fragility of its multi-alignment strategy. 'Moving forward, Pakistan faces the daunting task of balancing its relationships with both Tehran and Washington. This requires deft diplomacy to navigate an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape, a challenge that appears near-impossible amid the current crises," said sources.
India Today
16 minutes ago
- India Today
Operation Sindhu: 280 more Indians return from Iran via special flight
A special flight under Operation Sindhu brought back over 280 Indian nationals from war-hit Iran on Sunday. The Mahan Air flight (W50071A) landed at Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport, Delhi, carrying mostly students and the passengers were more than 200 students from Jammu and Kashmir, along with several pilgrims who had travelled to Iran for Ziarat. Many of them held Indian flags as they stepped off the aircraft, expressing relief and gratitude for the safe evacuees praised the Government of India for acting quickly and organizing a smooth and well-coordinated rescue. Several returnees shared emotional stories about their time in Iran, where they lived in fear and uncertainty as the conflict intensified. India launched Operation Sindhu on Wednesday to evacuate its citizens from Iran amid the rising tensions between Tehran and Israel. The situation escalated after Israel carried out military strikes inside Iran, leading to growing concern for Indians stuck in the conflict Mahan Air flights carrying 1,000 Indian students, including 500 Kashmiris, from Mashhad, Iran, also landed in Delhi on Friday. A third flight also landed on Watch
