Washington, DC [US], May 9 :
US Vice President JD Vance's statement on tensions between India and Pakistan demonstrates Trump administration's broad view of foreign policy, which is the US not overextending itself in international affairs according to the US-based policy expert Michael Kugelman.

Kugelman, the Director of the South Asia Institute at The Wilson Center in an interview with ANI pointed out the change in the Trump administration's foreign policy and recalled how the administration during the 2019 crisis engaged between India and Pakistan.

When asked about Vance's statement that US will not play a role between India and Pakistan at this point, he responded, "It's notable in that on the one hand, he is reiterating what has been a consistent message from the US government throughout this crisis, and that is that the US wants to see de-escalation, that it does not want to see more escalation. But I think it is notable and that it is a bit of a contrast from the messaging we've heard from the State Department, which has been emphasizing not only de-escalation, but the fact that the US has been engaged with the Indian and Pakistani governments. We've heard that the Secretary of State Rubio has been speaking to his counterparts in Islamabad and New Delhi several times over the course of the crisis."

"But I think on the whole, the read I have of what Vance said is that it really reflects the Trump administration's broad view of foreign policy and that is that the US not be overextending itself in international affairs and that it's happy to express its desire for India and Pakistan to de-escalate, but that the US is not going to expend significant levels of bandwidth to try to get the two sides to deescalate and that would be a significant change from the first Trump administration, where we know that during the 2019 crisis, the Trump administration was heavily engaged," he said.

"Several senior officials were working very closely, engaging with the Indian and Pakistani sides. So, that is notable, it seems to be a bit of a change and suggests that the US commitment to full-scale mediation may not be there as much as it was during the first Trump administration. But I would say this, if the crisis worsens, if the hostilities increase, then I would not be surprised if despite what Vance says that the US would then become much more engaged. The US does not have an interest in an escalation. It does not want there to be a conflict between India and Pakistan," he said.

While speaking to Fox News, Vance said that although the United States can ask both parties to de-escalate, it cannot get involved in the conflict. "Fundamentally, India has its gripes with Pakistan. Pakistan has responded to India, what we can do is try to encourage these folks to de-escalate a little bit. But we are not going to get involved in the middle they were fundamentally none of our business and has nothing to do with America's ability to control it," Vance told Fox News.
When asked whether he sees third parties like Russia or China responding to the situation at this point, Kugelman responded, "We know that there's a pretty strong international consensus in favor of de-escalation, but I think it's a fairly small number of countries that would be in a position to try to mediate this crisis. And certainly the US would have to be a top candidate just because there is a precedent. I we know that the U.S. has been active in mediation efforts in 2019 and also in 1999 during the Kargil crisis, those are the two that come to mind. The US has, of course, a very warm relationship with India and has a very good relationship with Pakistan as well. But I think that it might be, there might be more viable mediation candidates further afield. They would not, in my view, include China. There's been a lot of talk about the role that China could play."

"But I think that China's significance in this crisis lies more in the security realm than in the diplomatic realm. China, course, is a significant supplier of arms to Pakistan and, you know, there's indications that we've received in terms of recent reports that Chinese weaponry or Chinese-made weaponry has been used by Pakistan during this crisis. But I think in terms of mediation, China has strong relations with Pakistan, but its relationship with India is sufficiently fraught that I suspect that New Delhi would not view China as a viable mediator. I think that we're thinking about third party involvement in terms of mediation, I would certainly identify the Arab Gulf States, the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Qataris, just because they all have very strong relations with both India and Pakistan. They supply fuel and other products to India and Pakistan, which I think gives them some leverage and there's a precedent with in 2021, the UAE helped mediate the discussions and negotiations that led to the LOC truce back in 2021," he added.

He said that if reports claiming that the Pakistani army leadership attended the funeral prayers of those who were targeted in India's strikes would be dreadful for Pakistan, as Islamabad has for long claimed that India is mistaken when it talks about terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan.

On Pakistan army leadership attending funeral prayers, where LeT terrorists were present, he said, "Well, I mean, if these reports are true, if they're verified, the optics would be dreadful for Pakistan, given that Pakistan has insisted for quite some time that India is mistaken when it talks of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. We know that the terrorist infrastructure is there. But if it's true that you have members of proscribed anti-India terrorist groups that are out in the public.Obviously, the optics of that are not good, obviously if you have military officers with them, it makes things even worse. It essentially validates the argument that India has been putting out there for so long. But I say that if these reports are verified, I think that, this would also speak to the broader challenge that lies for India."

"We know that it has sought for quite some time to try to degrade the threat posed by cross-border terrorism, posed by anti-India terrorists based in Pakistan and there have been kinetic actions undertaken by India in the past, 2019, 2016, going back that before that, but clearly, this has not made the problem go away and so if it's true that you have terrorists out there in the open attending funeral services, I think it reflects how India really needs to have a broader plan, which I think it does, meant to tackle and really eradicate this terrorism problem once and for all. And I think that grand plan would entail not only military action, but also broader punitive steps that are non-military in nature and I think where we've seen that in terms of some of the initiatives, steps announced by India in recent days in terms of trying to cut off trade, suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, using water as leverage, trying to pressure Pakistan's funders to cut off assistance. It seems that India is trying to do more to address this problem of cross-border terrorism that has proven so difficult to tackle for so long," he added.

During the briefing on 'Operation Sindoor' in Delhi on Thursday, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri displayed a photograph of Pakistan army personnel attending the funeral of terrorists killed in the Indian military strikes under 'Operation Sindoor' and said that it is "odd that the funerals of civilians are carried out with the coffins being draped in Pakistani flags and state honours being accorded".

He said that people wanted Prime Minister Narendra Modi to take action after the Pahalgam terrorist attack, which claimed the lives of 26 people and injured several others. He said that many of us expected that India would eventually carry out strikes to target terrorists.

On how he sees domestic politics playing out in this larger picture, he stated, "I think domestic political factors are very strong in both cases, both India and Pakistan. I think that the Modi government was under significant pressure from the public to do something after the horrific terrorist attack in Kashmir last month. And the Modi government projects itself as strong, as decisive, and willing to hit back at terrorism. So, I think that so many of us expected that India would eventually carry out airstrikes and India targeting terrorists that were behind these attacks. But I think that the pressure made the decision even easier, so to speak, in the sense that had the Modi government not acted, it would have been extremely politically damaging, I would argue."
He said that civilian and military leadership in Pakistan had been unpopular for quite some time and called this crisis helpful for civilian and military leadership as it enables the government and the military to rally the public's support around them. However, he warned that war is the last thing that the Pakistan's civilian and military leadership can afford since it is facing economic stress and upsurge in terrorism.

On the domestic politics in Pakistan amid the ongoing tensions, he responded, "On the Pakistani side, it's a bit of a different case. As you know, the civilian and military leadership in Pakistan had been quite unpopular for quite some time. And I would argue that this crisis actually is very helpful politically for the civilian and military leadership, in that it enables the government and the military to rally the public and rally the country around them, around the government and the military and hope to win back some goodwill and trust, particularly because, you know, in the case of the military, it's an opportunity to point to this notion of a threat posed by India. And the military has tended to use that notion of an Indian threat as justification for its outsized role in politics and statecraft and so on. So, now the military can say, look, we're facing this onslaught, we're facing these attacks from India, this is our moment to rally together and go after this threat, so to speak. So in that sense, I think the military gets a bit of a political boost out of this. And given that there's been pretty strong anti-army sentiment within the public in Pakistan in recent years, I think this is an opportunity to bring the country together to try to transcend all of this political polarization and essentially rally the country around the military that it's viewed as this protector that needs to have that strong role serving as a safeguard for Pakistan in the face of this Indian threat."

"So. bottom line, political benefits abound, I think at least in the immediate term for the Pakistani state. Now, if there were to be an actual conflict, if there were to be a war, which I think is unlikely, but if that were to happen, that's where I think the disadvantages come out and the benefits go away. In that, Pakistan's civilian and military leadership confronting economic stress and upsurge in terrorism and the last thing that the country can afford is a war, which would clearly set back the economy and I think it could lead to a very chaotic situation where terrorists would try to exploit security forces being diverted to the border with India focused on that conflict and terrorists could try to do more damage in Pakistan if there were to be a war and that clearly does not benefit the government's interest or the military's interests," he added.
About the impact on economy if there is prolonged tensions between India and Pakistan, he stated, "I think that for India, the main concern would be stock, how markets would respond, how markets would react. We know that markets don't react well to uncertainty and volatility and obviously there's nothing more representative of a very volatile and predictable situation than this growing crisis between India and Pakistan. So, I think that the market effects could be pretty significant for India. I think that at this point for India, at least the economic impacts would not go beyond these concerns for markets. If we were actually going to go into a conflict, then it's a whole other story. But, I think that India, I just because generally speaking, its macro economy is in a very good position, growth has been strong. I think it can withstand these market pressures and market concerns so long as we're not looking at an actual conflict."

He stated that Pakistan's economy is more vulnerable, and the market perceptions would not be good. He noted that there is volatility in Pakistan considering factors like terrorism, situation in Balochistan and other things happening in the country.
"Pakistan is different, its economy is more vulnerable. Certainly the market perceptions would not be good, that would not help Pakistan's economy overall. Pakistan's macro economy has stabilized a bit in recent months with inflation having gone down and the currency performing better and foreign reserves in better shape. So it is a bit more strength there. Again, the situation changes if you were to have an actual war, but given, given what our inherent,, volatility is in Pakistan because of terrorism, the incidence of terrorism and just the broader volatilities of the country with Balochistan and all it has going there and the rest of nature of so much of the country. I think there's always going to be some investor jitters even in the best of times and for investors to see this very serious crisis between Pakistan and India, I think that that could add to those jitters just a bit, especially if there are no indications that there's going to be a de-escalation anytime soon," he added.

About his impression on a realistic path to de-escalation in the short term, he responded, "I think that each side has to reach a point where they can claim victory for something and essentially at that point decide that they could call it a day and I'm not sure if we're at that point yet. I think that India initially had thought that its airstrikes in Pakistan could qualify as that victory because the way they were depicted, these were very robust strikes that clearly targeted areas where some of the most potent anti-India terrorist groups have been based, including southern Punjab. But I think because of the escalations that happened after that, I think that's become a bit moot. Now Pakistan has done violations over the last few days. I suspect that that idea might not be valid either, but it's just very difficult to know where things are going at this point. My sense is that this is not going to turn into a war and that within a few days or so, things will start to wind down. But, you know, I'll say this, Pakistan's messaging has been quite aggressive in the sense that it has continued to vow retaliation for the Indian airstrikes and I suspect that for Pakistan, the ideal time to say that it's achieved what it wanted to do and that it could step back would be a situation where it could deliver a proportionate response to India, relative to India's initial strikes."

"And we know that India's initial strikes were in Pakistan, administered Kashmir, and they were also in Punjab. That suggests that Pakistan, which to this point, so far as I know, has only directed military activities in Kashmir..it might hope at some point soon to try to direct some of its military action in India more broadly, one strike.I don't know, I don't want to speculate, but again, if the idea is a proportionate response compared to what India did, that suggests that Pakistan might not think it's done yet. This all remains to be seen. There are other factors here that I think could impact the timeframe here. If external mediation is successful, then I think that would mean that we could see de-escalation sooner rather than later. But I'm not sure if either side is prepared for de-escalation just yet, given how much anger and strong emotions there are in each capital. Now, I suspect that it could be a bit more time, but I do think that in due course in the coming days, this will start to wind down," he added.

India, on early Wednesday, carried out precision strikes at the terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir in response to the Pahalgam terror attack. Operation Sindoor, launched by Indian forces, targeted nine terror sites, which were successfully hit.

Over 100 terrorists were eliminated in a series of precision strikes, according to sources. The operation, aimed at avenging the Pahalgam terror attack in which 26 people were killed, remains underway, making it challenging to provide an exact casualty count of the terrorists at this stage, sources further stated.

Meanwhile, during the intervening night of May 8 and May 9, the Indian Army successfully repelled and decisively responded to multiple drone attacks and ceasefire violations by Pakistan along the western border and the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Army stated.

The Indian Army said, "Pakistan Armed Forces launched multiple attacks using drones and other munitions along entire Western Border on the intervening night of 08 and 09 May 2025. Pak troops also resorted to numerous cease fire violations (CFVs) along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. The drone attacks were effectively repulsed and befitting reply was given to the CFVs. Indian Army remains committed to safeguarding the sovereignity and territorial integrity of the Nation. All nefarious designs will be responded with force."

Source: ANI

Vance's statement on India-Pak tensions reflects Trump admin's broad view of foreign policy: US-based expert