Possible Scenarios for the Ceasefire Agreement Between India and Pakistan

On May 10, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced via his platform, Truth Social, that he had successfully convinced India and Pakistan to reach an agreement on an immediate and complete ceasefire. This came after four days of fighting (from May 7 to 10, 2025) involving mutual artillery and missile shelling, which claimed the lives of 60 people from both sides and raised fears of a full-scale war between the two nuclear powers.

The conflict erupted between the two nuclear neighbors two weeks after an attack by an armed group on a number of tourists at the Pahalgam resort in the Indian-administered part of Kashmir, resulting in the deaths of 26 people. Following the attack, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated that his country would pursue the suspects “to the ends of the earth” and that those who planned and executed the attack “will be punished in a way they cannot withstand.”

Motivating Factors:

The announcement of the ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan came as a “surprise” to observers, especially given that it occurred amid escalating military confrontations between the two countries. However, some factors and reasons help explain the rapid conclusion and announcement of this agreement at this critical time, as follows:

U.S. Mediation: The U.S. played a decisive role in the announcement of the ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Rubio announced that he and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance had jointly contacted officials from both countries, resulting in a ceasefire agreement. He stated that both sides (India and Pakistan) would engage in talks on a wide range of contentious issues in a “neutral location.” This highlights the influence and acceptance Washington holds with both sides. It also marks a success for President Donald Trump and his administration in defusing the escalating crisis between the two countries. Although India downplayed the U.S. mediation role—an Indian source stressed that “the truce was directly reached with Pakistan”—Pakistan confirmed the effectiveness of the American role, as reflected in Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s statement: “We thank President Trump for his leadership and proactive role for peace in the region.”

Heavy Human and Material Losses: The four-day military confrontations resulted in both sides suffering material and human losses. Pakistan announced it had successfully downed several Indian warplanes, including advanced jets like the Rafale and Sukhoi-30, as well as drones and others. The escalation led to the shutdown of several northern and western Indian states, including schools and other governmental and public institutions, in addition to some losses to the Indian economy.

On the other hand, Pakistan also suffered human and military losses. Indian strikes killed dozens of Pakistanis, while the Pakistani economy was hit due to a stock market decline and damage to the aviation sector. More than 20 commercial flights were rerouted to avoid Pakistani airspace. These losses pushed both sides to quickly accept the U.S. offer to reach an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire agreement, in order to avoid further human, military, and material losses.

Mutual Desire to De-escalate: Both India and Pakistan responded to the U.S. mediation and agreed to the ceasefire based on their willingness to de-escalate—if the other side initiated it. Both countries quickly recognized the gravity of the military escalation and the need for third-party intervention by a politically and militarily powerful actor like the United States to accept an immediate and complete ceasefire. India wished to avoid heavy military losses that might compel it to increase its military spending, which currently stands at about $86 billion. Meanwhile, Islamabad wanted to avoid ongoing fighting, which could result in large human and military losses. Thus, the political will of both countries aligned to rapidly reach a U.S.-brokered ceasefire agreement.

Washington’s Desire to Assert Influence in South Asia: The rapid U.S. intervention to contain the India-Pakistan escalation through intensive communication with officials from both countries can be seen as an effort by Washington to assert its influence in South Asia. This comes amid the rapidly increasing Chinese influence, particularly in Pakistan. Washington understood that continued armed conflict between the two countries would open the door for China to expand its regional influence at the expense of the U.S. Notably, the recent military confrontations showed Pakistan’s successful use of Chinese-made Chengdu J-10C fighter jets to shoot down Indian fighter planes, including French Rafales. Thus, the swift American action fits into the broader U.S.-China competition for influence, particularly as the U.S. and India are growing closer strategically, while Pakistan’s strategic ties with China deepen.

Possible U.S.-Pakistan Deal: Available sources suggest the possibility that the United States convinced Pakistan of the necessity to agree to a ceasefire after issuing high-alert warnings related to Pakistan’s strategic assets. Additionally, the U.S. may have agreed to support a loan from the International Monetary Fund for Pakistan in exchange for the ceasefire.

Possible Scenarios:

In light of the above, several scenarios can be envisioned regarding the actual implementation of the ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan and the possibility of preventing renewed direct military confrontations between them in the near future, as follows:

Scenario One: Political Settlement: This scenario (the most likely in the short term) assumes that the agreement will successfully prevent renewed military escalation between India and Pakistan. It is based on the following key considerations:

a. U.S. Mediation Role: U.S. mediation between India and Pakistan is one of the most crucial factors for enforcing the ceasefire, given both countries’ acceptance of the American role. This was reflected in Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif’s statement that the United States is the only country capable of playing an effective role between India and Pakistan. The strong relationship between Washington and New Delhi also serves as a major incentive for both countries to uphold the ceasefire.

b. Desire to De-escalate: This is arguably the most important factor supporting the ceasefire. It can be leveraged to ensure both sides refrain from mutual military escalation to avoid the ongoing losses associated with using military force as the only solution. Both countries also appear ready for direct negotiations. The phone call between the chiefs of the Indian and Pakistani armies on May 12, 2025, is an indicator of this. While in-person talks had been planned, they were replaced by phone discussions.

c. Regional and International Support for the Ceasefire: The G7 countries, along with China, Russia, and the United Nations, called on India and Pakistan to exercise maximum restraint. They warned that any additional military escalation would pose a serious threat to regional stability. In addition, 30 countries launched diplomatic efforts to convince India and Pakistan of the need for a ceasefire. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar highlighted the involvement of this large number of states in mediation, underscoring the effectiveness of these efforts in reaching the declared ceasefire agreement.

Scenario Two: War of Attrition: Despite the promising indicators that support the ceasefire and pave the way for a comprehensive political settlement of India-Pakistan disputes, this scenario suggests the agreement may fail to enforce a full ceasefire due to the following key reasons:

a. Lack of Mutual Trust: Both countries have accused each other of violating the ceasefire agreement. India’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused Pakistan of breaking the ceasefire just hours after it was announced. Pakistan insisted it was fully complying with the agreement and accused India of violations in certain border areas. India denied the Pakistani accusations and announced it would respond forcefully to any breaches along the shared border. Indian Foreign Minister Vikram Misri declared that Indian forces had begun retaliating for Pakistan’s ceasefire violations just hours after the agreement was reached.

b. Ongoing Disputes: The core disputes between the two countries, which are expected to be addressed in any future talks or negotiations under U.S. sponsorship, include:

Suspension of the Water Treaty: Despite the ceasefire agreement, Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif stated that the treaty remains suspended. This continues to affect water-sharing between India and Pakistan, with Pakistan being the more affected party due to India’s suspension of the agreement. The Indian government confirmed that the treaty remains suspended despite the cessation of military escalation.

The Kashmir Issue: The dispute over the Kashmir region remains unresolved. India maintains sovereignty over the region, whereas Pakistan supports granting the territory the right to self-determination through a popular referendum—an approach India refuses.

Conclusion:
The announcement of an immediate ceasefire between India and Pakistan reflects the success of the U.S. role in convincing both countries of the importance of halting direct military escalation at this time. It also demonstrates both countries’ recognition of the severe human, material, and military costs associated with intensifying armed conflict. While key disputes remain unresolved and may lead to renewed clashes, as was the case with the incident that sparked the current conflict, both sides may resort to cautious de-escalation to avoid the consequences of renewed escalation, which would be costly for both.