\n
The less-than-slam-dunk presentations so far, analysts and diplomats said, pointed to one of two possibilities: that India needs more time to gather information about the terrorist attack before striking Pakistan, or that \u2014 in a time of particular chaos on the world stage \u2014 it feels little need to justify to anyone the actions it plans to take.<\/p>\n
A military confrontation between India and Pakistan, both armed with nuclear weapons, runs the risk of rapid escalation that could be difficult to contain. But India is largely unrestrained by any global pressure to limit its response, and it has become quicker to flex its muscles in recent years as its diplomatic and economic power has grown.<\/p>\n
The governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia have spoken to the two sides, and Iran\u2019s foreign minister has publicly offered to mediate. The United Nations and the European Union have called for restraint and dialogue. But major powers, including the United States, are distracted by other crises, and analysts say India is interpreting the expressions of support by many countries for its pursuit of justice as a green light for any measures it takes.<\/p>\n
Trump administration officials have voiced strong backing of India\u2019s fight against terrorism. President Trump has said he is friendly with both India and Pakistan, while noting that they have long been at odds.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
But it is unclear how involved Washington will get in the current clash. Three months into his term, Mr. Trump has still not named an ambassador to India, a sign of where South Asia ranks in his list of priorities.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Even if the United States or other powers did try to insert themselves into the conflict, they may have limited influence. India and Pakistan have fought several wars over Kashmir, a region that they share but both claim in whole, and New Delhi views the dispute solely as a bilateral issue with Pakistan.<\/p>\n
The initial response from Washington has been similar to how the first Trump administration dealt with the last major flare-up over Kashmir, in 2019, said Daniel Markey, a senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.<\/p>\n
That confrontation was spurred by an attack that killed dozens of Indian security forces. The perpetrators \u2014 fighters from a militant group called Jaish-e-Muhammad \u2014 were clear.<\/p>\n
At that time, the Trump White House signaled support for India. The administration increased its diplomatic pressure for restrain only after India had gotten a punch in on Pakistan, with a cross-border airstrike.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
The strike\u2019s damage was disputed. Afterward, as Pakistan moved to retaliate, it got into a dogfight and shot down an Indian jet. The pilot was taken prisoner.<\/p>\n
To make up for that fumbled response, all signs this time indicate a desire by India to do \u201csomething spectacular,\u201d Mr. Markey said. Pakistan has vowed to match and exceed any strike by India.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe tit-for-tat cycle could move rapidly, and the Indians and Pakistanis have inflated assessments of their own ability to manage escalation,\u201d Mr. Markey said.<\/p>\n
Unlike with the 2019 terrorist attack, the claims of responsibility for last week\u2019s slaughter have been murky, with information even on the number of attackers less than concrete. A little-known group calling itself the Resistance Front emerged on social media to say it was behind the massacre, according to Indian news outlets. Indian officials, in private, say the group is a proxy for Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terrorist organization based in Pakistan.<\/p>\n
The lack of clarity may help explain why India has pointed largely to Pakistan\u2019s past support of terrorism in Kashmir to make its case for a military reprisal now. But that approach, before India has laid out its evidence even in private diplomatic discussions, has raised some eyebrows considering the gravity of the escalation. One diplomat privately wondered: Do you want to go to war with a nuclear-armed neighbor based just on past patterns?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n