'Unfortunately, India and Pakistan could learn a 'lesson' from this conflict that will make them more likely to use these weapons against each other in the future.'
'Rounds of missile and drone attacks could be more routine features of their hostility, just like artillery fire has become a familiar fact of life along the Line of Control.'
"I was somewhat surprised by how quickly a cease-fire was reached, and I will be curious to learn more about precisely how that diplomacy unfolded as the story leaks out. I was concerned that once the escalation began, it might ratchet upward more rapidly and uncontrollably. I'm glad that was not the case," Daniel S Markey, senior advisor on South Asia at the United States Institute of Peace, the Washington, DC-based think-tank, tells Nikhil Lakshman/Rediff.
Dr Markey is also a senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies Foreign Policy Institute.
From 2007 to 2015, Dr Markey was a senior fellow for India, Pakistan, and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations. From 2003 to 2007, Dr Markey was a member of the US State Department's Policy Planning Staff, focusing on US strategy in South Asia, especially Pakistan and India.
The first of a two-part interview.
By those two statements issued on Saturday -- US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's assertion that India and Pakistan would discuss all issues at a neutral venue; then President Trump's offer of mediating in disputes -- has America undermined years of carefully building a relationship with India?
Has the Trump administration restored the hyphen with Pakistan that vexed India's leaders and diplomats for years?
I don't think this episode alone will undermine the US-India strategic partnership. But in combination with other aspects of President Trump's India policy, especially new tariffs and the televised deportation of illegal Indian migrants from the United States, it constitutes a serious political blow.
I have to imagine that some Indian analysts who anticipated that the Trump administration would be a welcome change after Biden are now questioning their assumptions.
Were these remarks born out of ignorance? Or spawned by an administration, unable to make headway in Ukraine or Gaza, keen to find success somewhere?
Or provoked by concern that the 72-hour war could have spun into a nuclear confrontation?
Does Trump's Washington suddenly find renewed value in a relationship with Pakistan that its predecessors had long given up on after Rawalpindi/Islamabad's many betrayals?
I do not believe that the Trump administration has made a considered strategic shift on Pakistan, and I don't even think the White House fully appreciates how these remarks would be interpreted in India.
They are, however, consistent with President Trump's longstanding offer to mediate between India and Pakistan, something he voiced during his first administration. They likely reflect his confidence that US involvement in any global matter, no matter how complicated, can quickly bring a positive resolution.
Do you think Rubio and Trump's remarks are a setback for India-US relations, given India's stern response already, or will Delhi dismiss it as typical Trumpspeak -- spoken today, forgotten tomorrow and continue what earlier Indian and US governments have carefully built since the dawn of this century, especially they need to keep dealing with this transactional president for four more years?
Notably, in the official statements -- including Prime Minster Modi's address to the nation on Monday night -- coming out of Delhi after the ceasefire, America is not mentioned at all.
It is as if the ceasefire came about via a conversation between the two DGMOs and the US had nothing to do with it.
I believe that India's diplomats have learned a lesson that if they stick to their position on issues of top national interest, the Trump administration may accept their intransigence and move on to other matters.
Washington's bandwidth for global policy is being tested; as long as there is not a major crisis, the normal interagency process has been weakened and disrupted by massive turnover and overall downsizing in personnel.
CNN reported that US Vice President J D Vance, Secretary Rubio and White House Chief of Staff Susan Wiles were alerted by intelligence that compelled the US to get quickly involved in resolving the India-Pakistan crisis after initially shrugging off any involvement.
In your assessment, what could that intelligence have been? That an Indian airstrike had come perilously close to breaching one of Pakistan's nuclear storage sites?
My assessment is that VP Vance and Secretary of State Rubio were increasingly well informed about the prospects of a very serious war. Although I do not have access to classified information, I am not entirely sure that these news stories correctly describe the internal decision making processes of the US government.
In any case, I would like to believe that the general prospect of military escalation between India and Pakistan should capture the full attention of senior US officials well before there would need to be any credible threat of an actual nuclear accident or similar event.
If this information to the White House came from the Pakistanis, could it have been truthful?
Could it have been classic ISI deception designed to alarm the Americans and get them to persuade the Indians to call a cessation of hostilities especially when Pakistan is in no economic condition to continue a long war?
I can imagine that Pakistan would have reasons to deceive the United States in the midst of a crisis with India. However, under normal circumstances the US intelligence community would also be well aware of that possibility, would not base its assessments on Pakistani-sourced intelligence, and would be very sensitive to the potential for manipulation.
Disinformation and misinformation are familiar tools, not new to the India-Pakistan context.
What are the five or maybe seven things about this 72-hour war that surprised you most?
I was not especially surprised by the way that the conflict unfolded, at least in its most general outlines. Analysts of India-Pakistan crises had for years anticipated that the 'next' conflict would look a lot like 2019, but worse. That is basically what we witnessed.
The inciting terrorist outrage was worse, India's response was more spectacular, and Pakistan's counter was also intended to be significantly broader.
To the extent there were surprises within that story, they included the widespread use of drones by both sides, extended dogfights featuring new, high-end aircraft, and the involvement of new missile and air defense systems.
On a positive note, I was somewhat surprised by how quickly a cease-fire was reached, and I will be curious to learn more about precisely how that diplomacy unfolded as the story leaks out.
I was concerned that once the escalation began, it might ratchet upward more rapidly and uncontrollably. I'm glad that was not the case.
In a sense, does this conflict redefine war, when adversaries don't cross their territory, but hurl swarms of drones and missiles at each other? Can such a stratagem be limited in its duration and geographical spread?
In some ways, these new technologies are changing warfare mainly by reducing the costs -- in both human and financial terms -- to limited offensive operations that might otherwise be far slower or vastly more expensive. However, there are still important limitations to drone and missile campaigns.
Above all, they cannot take or hold territory and as a consequence are unlikely to deliver a decisive military victory.
Unfortunately, India and Pakistan could learn a 'lesson' from this conflict that will make them more likely to use these weapons against each other in the future.
Rounds of missile and drone attacks could be more routine features of their hostility, just like artillery fire has become a familiar fact of life along the Line of Control.
© 2025