How Is Washington's Shadow Affecting Iran and Pakistan?

New Delhi: In the complex narrative of the nuclear era, few regions reflect its tumultuous contradictions as profoundly as South Asia and the Middle East – two geopolitical flashpoints where the pursuit or possession of nuclear capabilities serves both as a symbol of security and a catalyst for conflict.

The recent crisis – India's assertive action against Pakistan's backing of terrorism under the nuclear shield, alongside Israel's unwavering efforts to block Iran's nuclear aspirations – underscores not only the evolving dynamics of deterrence but also the significant imbalances that shape the practice of warfare and diplomacy in a world perpetually teetering on the brink of disaster.

The relationship between India and Pakistan, historically viewed as a classic example of nuclear stability through mutual vulnerability, has in recent years transformed into a more precarious situation. Pakistan's Full Spectrum Deterrence doctrine – a strategy that merges existential defense logic with the permissibility of proxy warfare – aims to weaponize the fear of nuclear conflict to sustain a low-cost campaign of cross-border terrorism. This precarious strategy is predicated on the assumption that India's conventional military strength will always be constrained by the threat of nuclear retaliation.

However, in a moment of strategic clarity, New Delhi has overturned this assumption. Rejecting the inertia of the past, India recently conducted a series of carefully measured retaliatory strikes – targeting Pakistan's terrorist networks, command structures, and even its airbases – with a purposeful mix of precision and restraint. The operations, known as Operation Sindoor, were intended not to provoke a global catastrophe but to expose the weakness of a deterrent that had, for too long, allowed aggression to go unchecked. What emerged was a significant shift: a nuclear stalemate no longer ensured strategic immunity.

In the midst of this recalibration of risk and response, the United States positioned itself in South Asia not as a combatant but as a deft manager of perceptions. Washington's role has been characterized less by direct intervention and more by narrative guidance – advocating for de-escalation, shaping narratives, and projecting itself as a stabilizing force preventing nuclear disaster. In this dynamic, an intriguing inversion took place: Pakistan, in its futile attempt to portray itself as a responsible player by nominating President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, inadvertently highlighted the very dependency it sought to mask. What was meant as a diplomatic gesture turned into an unintentional admission – indicating that the optics of purported restraint had been effectively delegated to Washington. In this environment of symbolic actions and transactional diplomacy, the American role – limited at best to that of a mediator – was reframed as a demonstration of Trumpian benevolence.

Conversely, Israel's confrontation with Iran operates along a distinct strategic axis. Here, the concern is not about misapplied deterrence but rather the impending emergence of a nuclear capability. Tehran, on the brink of nuclearization, has not yet acquired the bomb. For Israel, whose historical narrative is marked by existential threats, the equation is clear: a nuclear-capable Iran is unacceptable. The strategy is preemptive, aiming to eliminate a potential threat before it materializes.

In this context, the United States has displayed its dual-faced role. Trump's escalation towards open military conflict with Iran represents one of his most perilous foreign policy decisions, exposing the contradictions in his anti-war rhetoric. While Washington advocated for restraint in South Asia, it did not hesitate to become an active participant in the Middle East. As Israel's operations against Iran's fortified nuclear assets stretched the limits of its capabilities, it was the American military apparatus that stepped in to support Israeli aims; U.S. intervention was unconstrained by escalation taboos and undeterred by the specter of radioactive fallout. Joint strikes, executed with surgical precision, conveyed a different message: that the framework of non-proliferation would be upheld not only through treaties and inspections but also through preemptive military action.

These contrasting approaches reveal more than regional specificities – they expose the fundamental structure of the existing global order. In South Asia, global powers responded in diverse ways – some advocating for restraint, others offering mediation – all haunted by the prospect of a nuclear catastrophe engulfing the subcontinent. Yet in the Persian Gulf, preemptive action – often condemned elsewhere – was tacitly sanctioned. The distinction lies not merely in geography but in strategic considerations: the threat posed by a nuclear Iran is deemed more intolerable than the risks associated with warfare to avert it.

The selection of targets also highlights divergent strategic philosophies. Israel's operations were systematic – first dismantling the backbone of Iranian proxy influence throughout the Levant, degrading Hezbollah's capabilities, and neutralizing Hamas's logistical support, before focusing on the core of Iran's nuclear program. This sequencing was intended to diminish Iran's ability for asymmetric retaliation before delivering a decisive strategic blow.

India's airstrikes, on the other hand, were more measured in scope. It refrained from targeting the masterminds of terrorism entrenched within Pakistan's military-intelligence framework. Instead, it focused on the visible infrastructure of proxy warfare: the camps, the launch sites, the machinery of terrorism. The objective was not to dismantle the coercive apparatus of the state but to recalibrate the cost-benefit analysis of terrorism under the nuclear umbrella.

These events could be seen as a pivotal moment – a time when the utility of nuclear weapons was both revealed and constrained. India's assertiveness signaled the diminishing effectiveness of Pakistan's strategy of nuclear coercion. Meanwhile, Israel's actions reaffirmed the persistent, albeit perilous, allure of preemptive warfare. Yet through these incidents, one constant endures: the United States, despite its internal political upheaval and external indecision, remains the central axis around which global security dynamics revolve. It is the shadow of Washington that looms over both regions, influencing the strategic calculations of all parties involved.

However, this shadow remains alarmingly selective, neglecting its long-term consequences. Addressing Iran's nuclear ambitions in isolation fails to recognize the intricate web of regional relationships and historical contexts, particularly regarding its engagement with Pakistan's nuclear trajectory. The narrative did not commence in Tehran, but rather in Islamabad – where covert channels, managed by the infamous A Q Khan, provided Pakistan with critical centrifuge technology and established the technical foundation for Iran's nuclear initiative. This transfer of centrifuge technology equipped Iran with both capability and strategic rationale. Yet no vigorous efforts were made to dismantle Pakistan's illicit nuclear network; instead, the full weight of Western intelligence and coercive scrutiny was meticulously directed at the Iranian endeavor. Consequently, the architects of Pakistan’s proliferation network have been sheltered by geopolitical interests. In a landscape where tactical advantage often outweighs principle, India observes with irony – fully aware that the discourse of non-proliferation frequently takes a backseat to the demands of strategic alliances and convenience.

(Vinay Kaura is Assistant Professor, Department of International Affairs and Security Studies, Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Rajasthan. The views expressed are personal)