The ongoing crisis between India and Pakistan, which escalated dramatically last week, presents critical lessons for U.S. nuclear negotiations with Iran.
This confrontation involves two nations, each armed with approximately 170 nuclear warheads, and has its roots in long-standing disputes over Kashmir and historical animosities.
The recent escalation began following a terrorist attack on April 22 that claimed the lives of twenty-six individuals, predominantly Indian civilians.
India has attributed this attack to militants based in Pakistan, prompting a series of military responses that included drone strikes and missile exchanges.
The situation reached a boiling point when India conducted a significant airstrike on Pakistan’s Nur Khan air base, leading to heightened fears in Pakistan that India might consider a decapitation strike against its nuclear command.
Amid this rising tension, U.S. Vice President JD Vance initially claimed on May 8 that the conflict was “fundamentally none of our business.”
However, soon after receiving an intelligence briefing highlighting grave developments such as intercepted communications and troop mobilizations, both Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were compelled to intervene.
They engaged directly with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani leadership to negotiate a cease-fire, which was agreed upon on Saturday.
Despite the cease-fire, both nations have since traded accusations of violations, indicating the fragile nature of the agreement.
The swift transition from Vance’s isolationist stance to urgent diplomacy underscores the global implications of nuclear crises, challenging the notion that they can be dismissed as mere regional issues.
A nuclear exchange would wreak havoc, not only within the immediate region but would also disrupt global trade routes, spike energy costs, and create millions of refugees, straining international systems.
Moreover, radioactive fallout could pose environmental risks that extend far beyond the countries directly involved, directly impacting U.S. economic and security interests.
This highlights the importance of the United States taking decisive measures to prevent Iran from retaining any technological capability to develop nuclear weapons.
Allowing Tehran to maintain such capabilities risks mimicking the dangerous dynamics of the South Asian nuclear standoff, carrying profound global consequences.
Vance’s earlier assertion that the conflict was “none of our business” neglected the far-reaching consequences, but the alarming escalation quickly necessitated U.S. involvement.
The negotiations with Iran must learn from this critical situation.
Tehran’s regime has a history of supporting proxy groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis, and has shown a capability for destabilization, evident in actions such as the 2019 Aramco attack.
If Iran retains the technological infrastructure for nuclear weapons, it could exploit the threat of nuclear armament to amplify regional aggression or clandestinely pursue weapon development, thereby creating crises with global ramifications akin to that of India and Pakistan.
The continuous cycle of escalation seen between India and Pakistan—a dynamic fueled by their mutual nuclear arsenals—illustrates a provocative behavior pattern often justified by the notion of deterrence.
India’s military responses to the April 22 attack reflect how nuclear capabilities can lead to a fragile status quo, which is risk-prone.
Despite Vance’s hope that the situation would not devolve into broader regional conflict or a nuclear exchange, the urgency for U.S. intervention proved indispensable as tensions quickly escalated.
Iran represents an even graver danger in this context.
Possessing nuclear technology would enhance Tehran’s proxy military operations—such as Hezbollah targeting Israel or the Houthis disrupting shipping in the Red Sea—confident in their nuclear capability to deter countermeasures.
This environment could trigger a regional arms race, prompting nations like Saudi Arabia to seek their own nuclear capabilities and further increasing the likelihood of miscalculations.
The history of India-Pakistan relations demonstrates the intricate challenges associated with managing nuclear-armed states, marked by a longstanding cycle of distrust and fragile diplomacy that fails to resolve deep-rooted tensions.
Iran’s tendency to evade oversight from the International Atomic Energy Agency and prolong negotiations—similar to its actions during the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—suggests that managing Iranian nuclear ambitions will present parallel difficulties.
The U.S. must approach upcoming negotiations with Iran stringently, requiring the dismantling of any infrastructure related to nuclear weaponization, bolstered by robust verification measures, continuous sanctions, and a credible military deterrent.
The latest crisis between India and Pakistan, which was triggered by terrorism and narrowly skirted nuclear conflict, forced Vance to pivot from a stance of disengagement to urgent diplomatic action to prevent catastrophe.
Ultimately, Washington bears significant responsibilities in these crises, underscoring the necessity for decisive action to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons—before circumstances spiral out of control.
image source from：https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/the-india-pakistan-crisis-shows-washington-that-it-must-stop-irans-nuclear-rise/
