Pahalgam, Pakistan and power politics: How the US balances India and Islamabad

One year after the Pahalgam terror attack that took place on 22 April 2025, the aftershocks are still shaping South Asia’s geopolitics and testing the strategic clarity of the United States. The attack, which killed 26 innocent civilians, mostly Hindu tourists, was among the deadliest assaults on non-combatants in Kashmir in recent years. It not only reignited India–Pakistan tensions but also exposed the enduring duality in Washington’s regional approach—deepening ties with India while preserving tactical en

Yet, the strategic convergence that might have followed did not fully materialise. Instead, India–US relations entered a phase of friction. A key irritant was President Trump’s claim of a US role in mediating between India and Pakistan—something New Delhi has consistently rejected. The disagreement soon spilled into the economic domain, with sharper rhetoric on trade imbalances, tariffs, and market access. What emerged was a familiar contradiction: the two countries aligned closely on security concerns, particularly terrorism and China’s rise, but diverged on economic nationalism and geopolitical autonomy.

Despite these tensions, the relationship did not fracture. It recalibrated. The structural drivers of India–US ties remain strong. China’s growing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific continues to push both countries closer, making their partnership strategically indispensable. Economic interdependence also plays a stabilising role, with the United States remaining one of India’s largest trading partners and a critical source of investment and technology. Institutional mechanisms—ranging from defence cooperation to multilateral platforms—provide continuity even when political signals fluctuate. In essence, both sides recognised that short-term disagreements could not override long-term strategic interests.

Even as ties stabilised afterthe February 2026 trade deal, bringing the effective tariff rate down to18 per cent, a new geopolitical variable began to change the equation: rising tensions involving the conflict between the US-Israel and Iran. In this evolving West Asian geopolitical landscape, Pakistan has found renewed relevance. In its newfound role as global peacemaker, Pakistan has worked frantically to water down differences between Iran and the US. Leveraging its geography and historical ties, Islamabad has positioned itself as a potential intermediary in backchannel engagements. For Washington, this is less about preference and more about necessity. Pakistan offers access, influence, and logistical advantages that become valuable during regional crises.

This renewed engagement does not imply a strategic shift away from India, but it does highlight a recurring pattern. The United States tends to engage Pakistan tactically when immediate regional challenges demand it, even as it invests in a longer-term partnership with India. For New Delhi, this creates both concern and clarity. The concern lies in the possibility that renewed US–Pakistan engagement could dilute international pressure on terror networks operating from Pakistani soil. The clarity, however, comes from recognising that Washington’s approach is fundamentally interest-driven and issue-specific.

At the same time, India’s position has strengthened in certain respects. Its consistent emphasis on counter-terrorism, reinforced after Pahalgam, has bolstered its credibility globally. The country’s growing economic weight and its role in seminal Indo-Pacific dynamics ensure that it remains central to US strategic thinking. Moreover, India’s policy of strategic autonomy allows it to engage multiple global players without being locked into rigid alliances

Pahalgam was a stark reminder that acts of terror can recast not only national security responses but also international alignments. For the United States, it reaffirmed the need to manage competing priorities in a volatile region. For India, it underscored the importance of engaging global partners with both realism and resolve. In a world defined by changing equations, stability is no longer assured—it is continuously negotiated.