The alarming possibility of two nuclear-armed nations exchanging fire has raised significant concern among the international community. Yet, this time, the world seems to be watching from the sidelines, a stark contrast to the intense diplomatic engagements witnessed during previous conflicts such as the Israel-Gaza war and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The prevailing atmosphere of tension underscores a markedly different geopolitical landscape.

The current global stage features the United States, under the administration of a more insular Donald Trump, adopting a hands-off stance. Meanwhile, China, often viewed as a key player in regional diplomacy, has not taken a proactive approach either. This absence of a credible intermediary to mediate between the conflicting nations has been highlighted by noted geopolitical expert Fareed Zakaria, who argues that the lack of diplomatic intervention is exacerbating the situation.

'Lost US as Useful Intermediary'

Historically, the United States has played a crucial role as a diplomatic powerhouse, often stepping in to pull nations back from the brink of war. Zakaria points out that the US's current laissez-faire attitude can be partially attributed to the escalation of conflicts, as the country is one of the few that has the potential to communicate with both sides and work towards de-escalation.

In an exclusive interview with India Today, Zakaria remarked, "We have lost the United States as a kind of useful intermediary. You saw Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, initially taking on that role, yet just hours later, Vice President JD Vance essentially distanced the US from the situation, stating that it is 'none of our business.'" This reflects a troubling duality in American foreign policy, oscillating between engagement and detachment.

On Saturday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reached out again to both India and Pakistan for the second time in just three days, emphasizing the necessity for maximum restraint and the restoration of direct communication channels. However, the messages emanating from other top officials were anything but unified. Vice President JD Vance's comments about the US's reluctance to intervene in a matter he deemed "fundamentally none of our business" further highlighted the division within the American leadership.

Adding to the confusion is President Trump's previous characterization of India's military actions—specifically, Operation Sindoor, which involved striking nine terror camps in Pakistan—as a "shame." Trump's failure to engage directly with the leaders involved has left many questioning the US's commitment to resolving the tensions between the two nations.

Zakaria expressed concern over the growing chasm in American credibility. He noted, "You see the tension in America between the traditional engaged superpower and the isolationist wing of the Republican Party. The US is now perceived as less trustworthy by Pakistan than it was 10 or 15 years ago, with many believing the US has become entirely pro-Indian." This shift is alarming and suggests a deterioration of long-standing diplomatic relations.

In previous encounters, notably in 2016 and 2019 following the Uri and Pulwama attacks, the US played a pivotal role in de-escalating hostilities between the two nations. During that period, American intervention was critical in securing the release of Indian Air Force pilot Abhinandan Varthaman after the Balakot airstrike, showcasing the impact of US diplomacy on regional stability.

Zakaria argued that the current 'Fortress America' mentality—where domestic priorities such as tariffs and trade take precedence over international conflicts—will only allow local disputes to fester. He emphasized, "This may be the new world we are in, a world without a superpower that actively tries to manage tensions. These local conflicts can spiral out of control, and that poses a significant danger."

'China Can't Be Trusted'

In addition to the waning influence of the US, Zakaria expressed skepticism about China's role as a potential intermediary. He argued that while the European Union lacks the necessary geopolitical and military heft to intervene effectively, India has historically been reluctant to involve the United Nations in such conflicts. "India would not trust China as an intermediary at all, despite the latter's professed friendship with Pakistan," he stated.

China's response to the ongoing conflict has been cautious and somewhat reserved. Although it has referred to Pakistan as its “all-weather friend” and has made efforts to soften a UN Security Council condemnation of recent attacks, it has refrained from providing strong public support for Pakistan in this crisis.

With India finding itself with limited external backing, Zakaria indicated that it now must rely on its own strategies to address the crisis. He warned that Pakistan must recognize the futility of attempting to win against a much larger and more powerful India. "This is the post-American world that I am concerned about, particularly in South Asia. The prospect of conflict escalating uncontrollably is very real, and India needs to signal a more measured approach while hoping Pakistan understands this is a fight they cannot win," Zakaria concluded.

Published By: Abhishek De
Published On: May 10, 2025