How Backchannels and US intermediaries pulled rivals back from the edge

In a dramatic turn of the events, US President Donald Trump has undertaken social media on Saturday to announce that India and Pakistan – after four tense days of cross -border clashes – agreed to a “Complete and immediate cessation of fire.”

Behind the scenes, US mediators, along with diplomatic backdrops and regional players, have been critical in the withdrawal of nuclear armed rivals back from the edge, experts say.

However, hours after the fire termination deal, India and Pakistan were traded Accusations of new violations – emphasizing its instability.

India accused Pakistan of “multiple violations” while Pakistan insisted that he remained engaged in the termination of fire, with his powers showing “responsibility and restraint”.

Prior to announcing the cessation of the fire of Trump, India and Pakistan, they dwell on what many were afraid to turn into a complete conflict.

After a deadly belligerent attack, he killed 26 tourists in the Indian administered cashmere last month, India started air strikes in Pakistan and Pakistan, administered Kashmir-acts for air clashes, artillery duels and on Saturday morning, accusations on both sides of missiles on other airbases.

The rhetoric escalates sharply, with each country claiming that it has caused severe damage while carrying the attacks to the other.

Tanny Madan, a senior associate at the Brookings Institution in Washington, says US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir on May 9 “Maybe it was the decisive moment.”

“We still do not know about the roles of various international participants, but in the last three days it has become clear that at least three countries have worked to de -escalate – the United States, of course, but also the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia,” she says.

Pakistan Foreign Minister Ishak Dar told Pakistani media that “three dozens of countries” have participated in diplomacy – including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

“One question is whether, if this call came earlier -immediately after the initial Indian strikes, when Pakistan has already claimed some Indian losses and is available outside the ramp -this can prevent more escalation,” says G -Madan.

This is not the first time American mediation has helped to discourage a crisis in India and Pakistan.

In his memoir, Former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said He was awakened to speak with an unnamed “Indian counterpart” who feared that Pakistan was preparing nuclear weapons during the opposition of 2019.

Former Indian Supreme Commissioner of Pakistan Ajay Bisaria later writes that Pompeo overestimates both the risk of nuclear escalation and the role of the United States to calm the conflict.

But diplomats say there is little doubt that the US has played an important role in defining the crisis this time.

“The United States was the most famous external player. The last time Pompeo claims to have prevented nuclear war. While they are likely to exaggerate, they may have played the main diplomatic role, perhaps enhancing Delhi’s position in Islamabad,” Bisaria told BBC on Saturday.

Still, at the outset, the United States seemed to be a striking opposition.

As the tension is on fire, US Vice President JD Vance said on Thursday that the United States will not get involved in a war that “essentially none of our business.”

However, we cannot control these countries. In principle, India has its grips with Pakistan … America cannot tell the Indians to put their hands on. We cannot tell the Pakistani to put their hands on. And so we will continue to pursue this thing through diplomatic channels, “he said in a television interview.

In the meantime, President Trump said earlier this week: “I know both (leaders of India and Pakistan) very well and I want to see them work … I want to see them stop and I hope they can stop now.”

Ejaz Hyder, based on Lahore Defense Analyst, told the BBC that this seems to be the only difference from previous cases.

“The American role was a sequel to past models, but with one key difference – this time they initially remained their hands, watching the crisis develop instead of jumping immediately. Only when they saw how it plays, they step to manage it,” G -n -Hider told the BBC.

Experts in Pakistan say the escalation cycle deepened, Pakistan sent “double signals”, avenging a military one while announcing a meeting of the national command body (NCA) – a clear reminder of the nuclear overhang.

NCA controls and makes operational decisions on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

It was around the time when US Secretary of State Marco Rubio came in.

“The US was irreplaceable. This result would not have happened without the efforts of secretary Rubio,” Ashley Ji Telis, a senior associate at the Carnegie Fund for International Peace, told the BBC.

What also helped were Washington’s deepening relationships with Delhi.

The personal rapprochement of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Trump, plus the broader strategic and economic bets of the United States, gave diplomatic leverage to the US administration to push both nuclear armed rivals to de-escalation.

Indian diplomats see three key peaceful songs that happened this time, similar to Pulwama – Balakot in 2019:

• Pressure from the US and the UK
• Saudi mediation, like junior Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister visits both capitals
• Direct channel in India-Pakistan between the two national security advisers (NSAS)

Despite the shift of global priorities and the posture of the hands at the beginning, the United States eventually became involved as an indispensable mediator between nuclear rivals in South Asia.

Whether they are overestimated by their own employees or undervalued by Delhi and Islamabad, experts believe that the role of the United States as a crisis manager remains as vital – and as complex – as always.

However, doubts are retained because of the endurance of the fire cessation after the events on Saturday, with some Indian media reporting that they have essentially mediated by senior military officials of both countries – not the United States.

“This cessation of fire should be fragile. It appeared very quickly, against the background of celestial tensions. It seems that India has interpreted it differently than the US and Pakistan,” said Michael Kugelman, foreign policy analyst, before the BBC.

“Moreover, since he was gathered so quickly, the agreement may lack the right guarantees and assurances that one should need at such a tense moment.”