The next war between India and Pakistan

List of Key Chapter Titles

1. New Delhi's Failure to Deter Islamabad Will Fuel Future Violence
2. The Escalation Ladder: Pakistan's Long-Term Use of Proxies Against India
3. The Boomerang Effect of India's Punitive Strikes: Granting Pakistan a Major Symbolic Victory
4. Domestic Legitimacy: How the Crisis Reshaped the Image of Pakistan's Military
5. The Rebound of Deterrence: The Failure of India's Efforts to Re-establish Deterrence
6. Escalation Gone Too Far: The Logic of Conflict Under the Shadow of Nuclear War
7. Nuclear Brinkmanship: Pakistan's Nuclear Posture and U.S. Intervention
8. Disinformation and Drones: New Dangerous Dimensions Added to Future Confrontations
9. Fragile Ceasefire: The Temporariness of Peace and Structural Risks

Document Introduction

This report provides an in-depth analysis of the severe military crisis that erupted between India and Pakistan from April to May 2025. It focuses on why New Delhi's military operations, aimed at punishing and deterring Islamabad, failed to achieve their strategic objectives and instead heightened the risk of future conflict. This crisis was not an isolated border skirmish but a landmark escalation in the long-standing adversarial relationship on the South Asian subcontinent. Its scope extended beyond the traditional disputed region of Kashmir, impacting the heartlands of both nations and intertwining nuclear deterrence dynamics, domestic political maneuvering, and emerging technological factors, creating a complex and dangerous conflict landscape.

The report first traces the immediate trigger of the crisis—the terrorist attack on April 22 in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir—and the subsequent retaliatory strikes by India, codenamed "Operation Seal of God," against targets inside Pakistan. Unlike previous limited punitive actions, this Indian operation penetrated deep into Pakistan's Punjab province, expanding its targets from militant group facilities to include military objectives such as airbases. The intent was to demonstrate resolve to the domestic populace and re-establish deterrence against Pakistan's support for cross-border terrorism. However, the analysis points out that India's escalation precisely provoked a forceful Pakistani counter-response, leading to mutual losses in aerial combat, drone, and missile attacks. Pakistan's claim of shooting down Indian fighter jets, including French-made Rafales, was portrayed domestically and internationally as a major victory.

The report's core argument is that India's deterrence efforts backfired. The Pakistani military, particularly its leader General Asim Munir, successfully used the crisis to reverse its public image, which had been damaged by domestic political suppression (such as the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan) and economic woes. By demonstrating its capability to resist Indian "aggression," the military reaffirmed its domestic legitimacy, and Munir himself was promoted to Field Marshal. Far from compelling Pakistan to restrain its proxy networks (such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed), this likely reinforced the Pakistani military's traditional strategy of "externalizing pressure"—diverting domestic tensions by taking a hardline stance against India. Pakistan's "jihadist" infrastructure remains fundamentally intact, preserving its capacity to harass India through terrorism.

The report further delves into the complex role of nuclear weapons in this crisis. As the conventionally weaker side, Pakistan rejects a "no first use" policy and has long relied on tactical nuclear weapons and nuclear brinkmanship as key tools to counter India's conventional superiority. During the crisis, Pakistan's Defense Minister issued nuclear threats, and the National Command Authority convened an emergency meeting following the Indian airstrikes to issue nuclear warnings. This nuclear posture successfully triggered external intervention by the United States, leading to a ceasefire. However, it also highlighted the "nuclear deterrence paradox": while nuclear weapons reduce the likelihood of full-scale conventional war, they provide a "safe space" for low-intensity conflict, terrorist attacks, and proxy warfare, enabling both sides to engage in riskier confrontations below the ambiguous nuclear threshold.

The report also identifies two new dimensions that exacerbate future conflict risks: disinformation and drone technology. Media on both sides, particularly in India, disseminated false information during the crisis, heightening public panic and nationalist sentiment and worsening tensions in the absence of direct communication channels. Simultaneously, the extensive use of expendable loitering munitions (suicide drones) opened a new front in the conflict. Drones lower the political and military thresholds for escalation, making it easier for both sides to launch harassing attacks but also expanding the scope and unpredictability of future conflicts.

Finally, the report concludes that the current ceasefire is highly unstable. Both sides can claim victory from their respective narratives, but this only temporarily suppresses tensions. As long as the Pakistani military believes that utilizing proxy warfare and a hardline stance against India serves its institutional interests, as long as India believes military responses to cross-border terrorism are necessary, and as long as both sides lack reliable crisis communication mechanisms, any lull in violence will be brief. The next terrorist attack is likely to trigger a new, more destructive cycle of retaliation. Under the nuclear shadow, the risk of miscalculation increases with each confrontation. Based on detailed tracking of the 2025 crisis events, comparative analysis of official statements and media reports from both sides, and examination of the long-term strategic cultures and behavioral logic of the two countries' military institutions, this report aims to provide professional readers with an authoritative assessment of the latest developments and underlying drivers of the India-Pakistan conflict.

List of Key Chapter Titles

1. New Delhi's Failure to Deter Islamabad Will Fuel Future Violence
2. The Escalation Ladder: Pakistan's Long-Term Use of Proxies Against India
3. The Boomerang Effect of India's Punitive Strikes: Granting Pakistan a Major Symbolic Victory
4. Domestic Legitimacy: How the Crisis Reshaped the Image of Pakistan's Military
5. The Rebound of Deterrence: The Failure of India's Efforts to Re-establish Deterrence
6. Escalation Gone Too Far: The Logic of Conflict Under the Shadow of Nuclear War
7. Nuclear Brinkmanship: Pakistan's Nuclear Posture and U.S. Intervention
8. Disinformation and Drones: New Dangerous Dimensions Added to Future Confrontations
9. Fragile Ceasefire: The Temporariness of Peace and Structural Risks

Document Introduction

This report provides an in-depth analysis of the severe military crisis that erupted between India and Pakistan from April to May 2025. It focuses on why New Delhi's military operations, aimed at punishing and deterring Islamabad, failed to achieve their strategic objectives and instead heightened the risk of future conflict. This crisis was not an isolated border skirmish but a landmark escalation in the long-standing adversarial relationship on the South Asian subcontinent. Its scope extended beyond the traditional disputed region of Kashmir, impacting the heartlands of both nations and intertwining nuclear deterrence dynamics, domestic political maneuvering, and emerging technological factors, creating a complex and dangerous conflict landscape.

The report first traces the immediate trigger of the crisis—the terrorist attack on April 22 in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir—and the subsequent retaliatory strikes by India, codenamed "Operation Seal of God," against targets inside Pakistan. Unlike previous limited punitive actions, this Indian operation penetrated deep into Pakistan's Punjab province, expanding its targets from militant group facilities to include military objectives such as airbases. The intent was to demonstrate resolve to the domestic populace and re-establish deterrence against Pakistan's support for cross-border terrorism. However, the analysis points out that India's escalation precisely provoked a forceful Pakistani counter-response, leading to mutual losses in aerial combat, drone, and missile attacks. Pakistan's claim of shooting down Indian fighter jets, including French-made Rafales, was portrayed domestically and internationally as a major victory.

The report's core argument is that India's deterrence efforts backfired. The Pakistani military, particularly its leader General Asim Munir, successfully used the crisis to reverse its public image, which had been damaged by domestic political suppression (such as the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan) and economic woes. By demonstrating its capability to resist Indian "aggression," the military reaffirmed its domestic legitimacy, and Munir himself was promoted to Field Marshal. Far from compelling Pakistan to restrain its proxy networks (such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed), this likely reinforced the Pakistani military's traditional strategy of "externalizing pressure"—diverting domestic tensions by taking a hardline stance against India. Pakistan's "jihadist" infrastructure remains fundamentally intact, preserving its capacity to harass India through terrorism.

The report further delves into the complex role of nuclear weapons in this crisis. As the conventionally weaker side, Pakistan rejects a "no first use" policy and has long relied on tactical nuclear weapons and nuclear brinkmanship as key tools to counter India's conventional superiority. During the crisis, Pakistan's Defense Minister issued nuclear threats, and the National Command Authority convened an emergency meeting following the Indian airstrikes to issue nuclear warnings. This nuclear posture successfully triggered external intervention by the United States, leading to a ceasefire. However, it also highlighted the "nuclear deterrence paradox": while nuclear weapons reduce the likelihood of full-scale conventional war, they provide a "safe space" for low-intensity conflict, terrorist attacks, and proxy warfare, enabling both sides to engage in riskier confrontations below the ambiguous nuclear threshold.

The report also identifies two new dimensions that exacerbate future conflict risks: disinformation and drone technology. Media on both sides, particularly in India, disseminated false information during the crisis, heightening public panic and nationalist sentiment and worsening tensions in the absence of direct communication channels. Simultaneously, the extensive use of expendable loitering munitions (suicide drones) opened a new front in the conflict. Drones lower the political and military thresholds for escalation, making it easier for both sides to launch harassing attacks but also expanding the scope and unpredictability of future conflicts.

Finally, the report concludes that the current ceasefire is highly unstable. Both sides can claim victory from their respective narratives, but this only temporarily suppresses tensions. As long as the Pakistani military believes that utilizing proxy warfare and a hardline stance against India serves its institutional interests, as long as India believes military responses to cross-border terrorism are necessary, and as long as both sides lack reliable crisis communication mechanisms, any lull in violence will be brief. The next terrorist attack is likely to trigger a new, more destructive cycle of retaliation. Under the nuclear shadow, the risk of miscalculation increases with each confrontation. Based on detailed tracking of the 2025 crisis events, comparative analysis of official statements and media reports from both sides, and examination of the long-term strategic cultures and behavioral logic of the two countries' military institutions, this report aims to provide professional readers with an authoritative assessment of the latest developments and underlying drivers of the India-Pakistan conflict.