Strategic Implications of 4-Day Military Escalation of May 2025

It has been slightly over three months since the Pehlgam attack took place, but it appears that a lifetime has passed since then. It is because, geo-politically, so much has happened around the world since that fateful event. For example, immediately after the 4-day Pakistan-India tit-for-tat military escalation, there was a 12-day Iran-Israel military stand-off culminating in the destruction of Iranian nuclear sites by the US bombing, brutal continuation of Palestinian Genocide by Israel, continuation of the Russia-Ukraine War well into its third year, and so on.

However, as time passes and the fog of war starts clearing, it becomes easier to dispassionately analyse the past events, including the Pakistan-India military escalation of May 2025. Over the past three months, a great deal has been written and said on the subject from both sides, namely Pakistan and India. Unsurprisingly, both sides claimed victory in their versions. However, one of the most dangerous signs, as remarked by a few analysts, is that both Pakistan and India have drawn different lessons from the episode.

Hence, the likelihood of another military escalation is pronounced. In any case, the Indian Prime Minister Modi has only paused Operation “Sindoor” temporarily until the next terrorist attack against India. As far as Pakistan is concerned, its own Operation “Bunyaan-un-Marsoos” was a resounding success, enhancing its geo-political stature in the world.

So, with the advantage of hindsight, let’s analyse some aspects of this 4-day military escalation of May 2025 between Pakistan and India.

At the operational level, there seems to be a growing consensus among strategic experts that Pakistan gave a bloody nose to India. It is almost confirmed that Pakistan was able to shoot down six Indian fighter aircraft in this 4-day air battle without losing a single plane.

Although a few questions were raised about the performance of Pakistan's ground-based air defense, such analysis would remain incomplete without the availability of accurate data. Similarly, Pakistan was also able to hit back successfully on many Indian military targets, thus raising similar question marks over the performance of Indian ground-based air defence. Most of the operational-level successes and failures, as claimed by both sides, remain shrouded in obscurity due to the unavailability of accurate information. However, military leadership of both sides must have learnt their lessons and would now be preparing for the subsequent encounter, whenever it takes place. However, if Pakistan has to meaningfully deter India from initiating another military showdown, it will have to think beyond the response paradigm of “QPQ (+)” and move towards a more “Asymmetric Response Paradigm” including but not limited to pre-emption complemented by an integrated approach of all elements of national power.

However, at the strategic level, there is relatively more transparency regarding what happened and who gained or lost what from this 4-day encounter.

First, there is no doubt that since 2016 and 2019, India has pushed the “military envelope” further. Indian Prime Minister terms it as the “New Normal”, and Pakistani experts call it the “New Abnormal.” In any case, it is clear that militarily India pushed the boundaries further by striking deep into Pakistan proper at both military and civilian targets through long-range vectors, thus initiating the “non-contact warfare” in South Asia.

More importantly, the world did not object to it and watched the military spectacle with great interest, much like bystanders. From an Indian perspective, the ‘world's apathy’ for a limited military showdown between two nuclear powers constitutes a diplomatic and geopolitical victory. From a Pakistani perspective, this should be an alarming development, but not surprising, as the world did not object to Indian strikes on Balakot too, back in 2019.

In other words, India has been successful in enlarging the space for military operations without touching the nuclear threshold of Pakistan. Careful and calibrated selection of targets and non-contact vectors like the air force, drones, missiles, rockets, cyber, etc, by both sides enabled them to keep the military escalation below nuclear limits. The Pakistani stance that the ‘deterrence stability’ in South Asia remained intact, as the military escalation did not spiral down to a full-blown large-scale conventional war, also holds value since both sides were careful not to cross each other’s red lines.

Second, India has also been able to push the “political envelope” further by holding the Indus Water Treaty in abeyance for an indefinite period. It should be noted that in 2019, following the Balakot strikes, India abrogated Articles 370 and 35A, thereby altering the decades-old status quo in Jammu and Kashmir. Hence, in the garb of limited military escalations with Pakistan, India has been successfully pushing the political and diplomatic boundaries with impunity in line with its strategic interests. Now, the Indian thinking seems to indicate that water security would replace Kashmir as the core issue for Pakistan.

Hence, in their opinion, it would be more convenient for India to bargain for a stoppage of alleged Pakistani support for terrorism in exchange for water.

From Pakistan’s perspective, this is another dangerous development since the world has not objected to India's belligerence against a well-reputed and time-tested international treaty. Although the Court of Arbitration established under the Treaty has rejected India's stance, it does not prevent India from violating its obligations stipulated under the Treaty. Similarly, President Trump announced his desire to mediate on Kashmir, much to the dismay of Indians. This desire may not also bear fruit as India continues to be the US’s strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS), aimed at containing China.

Third, it appears that the US-Israel nexus was the biggest beneficiary of the Pehlgam episode. Israel was the only country that stood by India, unequivocally, during the 4-day military escalation by providing material and planning support. After one month, India reciprocated by staying neutral (thus favouring Israel) in the 12-day Iran-Israel conflict despite having very close relations with Iran.

Similarly, the US benefited fully from the dominant narrative that India was not only fighting against Pakistan but also against China. Interestingly, this fabricated media narrative was not only propagated within India but also in the international community. As a result, Modi was reminded again and again about the limitations of his notion of ‘strategic autonomy’.

It appears that for some foreseeable future, it would be tough for any political government in India to engage in potentially meaningful strategic cooperation with China without paying a heavy domestic political price. Hence, India would be drawn deeper into the QUAD arrangement as part of the IPS, much to the advantage of the US. However, the future trajectory will still depend upon the course of action adopted by Modi.

Fourth, the apparent ‘geo-political warmth’ shown by the US towards Pakistan, starting from the infamous ceasefire tweet by President Trump, which irked the Indians, also caught both Pakistan and India by surprise. Some analysts attribute it to a typical unpredictable Trump style. In contrast, others consider it a calculated move to put pressure on India for safeguarding the long-term strategic interests of the US in the region. Therefore, unless the US’ positive overtures towards Pakistan convert into meaningful actions e.g., support in United Nations for resolution of the Kashmir Dispute, restoration of the Indus Water Treaty, development of Pakistan’s economic corridors with Central and West Asia, etc, this will only be a transactional ‘happy’ phase in Pakistan-US relations without any long term strategic implications. However, as limited as it may be, Pakistan should capitalize fully on this small window of opportunity and utilize it to serve its long-term strategic interests, rather than pursuing short-term gains only.

Fifth, as the global order evolves, strategic realignments are becoming clearer every day. 4-day military escalation between Pakistan and India in May 2025 and a 12-day conflict between Iran and Israel in June 2025 have further crystallised these alignments. It appears that the “US-Israel-India Nexus” is central to the US policy of containing China, particularly in the Middle East, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Although it will always be a challenge for the US to keep Israel and India’s quest for greater strategic autonomy within manageable limits. The dividend for keeping this nexus alive, as perceived in Tel Aviv and New Delhi, far exceeds that of any other strategic arrangement due to multiple reasons.

As can be seen above, Pakistan cannot afford to allow any ‘strategic haze’ to confound its long-term strategic priorities in the region.

Unless India gives up its hegemonic ambitions and sits down to resolve outstanding issues with all neighbouring countries, it is apparent that South Asia will continue to remain an economically fractured and militarily violent region. Similarly, Pakistan-US relations will also remain ‘transactional’ due to a lack of any strategic convergence. Therefore, Pakistan must move forward with greater ‘strategic clarity’ in terms of its relations with China. Despite challenges, Pakistan needs to work towards greater regional economic integration with its western neighbourhood, including West and Central Asia, as well as Russia.

As Pakistan works to act as a pivot, rather than a pawn, in the US-China rivalry, it should build its rightful geopolitical space by nurturing greater partnerships especially in its Western neighborhood, with the support of China, Russia and other likeminded countries to safeguard its strategic interests.