As mediators backchannels and the US pulled rivals from the border

In the dramatic turn of events, US President Donald Trump went to social media on Saturday to report that India and Pakistan – after four tense days of cross -border contractions – agreed to a “Full and direct ceasefire.”

Outside the scenes, American mediators, as well as diplomatic remains and regional players, were critical of pulling nuclear collected rivals back from the border, experts say.

However, a few hours after the cessation of India and Pakistan traded Charges of fresh violations – emphasizing its fragility.

India has accused Pakistan of “repeated violations”, while Pakistan insisted that it remains committed to the ceasefire, and his forces show “responsibility and restraint”.

Before announcement of Trump’s ceasefire, India and Pakistan became spiral to the point that many were afraid that it could become a full -scale conflict.

After the deadly militant killed 26 tourists in Kashmira, which was engaged in Indian, last month, India launched airstrikes inside Pakistan and Pakistan Kashmiya air collisions, artillery fighting and, until Saturday morning, allegations on both sides of Misile’s strikes.

The rhetoric has grown dramatically, and each country stated that it had caused great damage by breaking the attacks of others.

Tani Madan, a senior officer of the Brookings Institute in Washington, says that on May 9, US Secretary of State Mark Rubio to the Chief of the Pakistani Army Asim Munira, “could be an important moment.”

“There is much more that we do not know about the roles of different international subjects, but in the last three days it is clear that at least three countries have worked on de -scalot – the United States, of course, but also the UK and Saudi Arabia,” she says.

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Iskak said in Pakistani media that “three dozen countries” were involved in diplomacy – including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the US.

“One of the questions is whether the call came earlier – immediately after the original Indian strikes, when Pakistan had already claimed that some losses in India and declines were available – it may interfere with further escalation,” says Ms. Madan.

This is not the first time the US mediation helped to discharge the crisis of India and Pakistan.

In his memoir, Former Secretary of State Mike Pump claimed He was woke up to talk to an unnamed “Indian counterpart” who was afraid that Pakistan was preparing nuclear weapons during the 2019 confrontation.

Later, the former High Commissioner of India in Pakistan, Aju Bisaria, wrote that Pompeo had overestimated both the risk of nuclear escalation and the role of the US in reassuring the conflict.

But diplomats say there is little doubt that the US played an important role in lifting the crisis this time.

“The United States was the most famous external player. Last time Pompeo claimed that they were deprived of the nuclear war. Although they probably exaggerated, they may have played a major diplomatic role, perhaps, strengthening Delhi’s position in Islamabad,” Mr. Bisaria said on Saturday.

Still, at the beginning of the United States, they looked amazingly confrontation.

As the tension broke out, on Thursday, the US Vice -President JD Vance said the United States is not going to participate in the war that “fundamentally none of our affairs”.

“We cannot control these countries. In principle, India has its own handles with Pakistan … America cannot tell the Indians put our hands. We cannot tell Pakistani to put our hands. And so we will continue to chase the case through diplomatic channels,” he said in a television interview.

Meanwhile, President Trump said that earlier this week: “I know both (leaders of India and Pakistan) very well and I want them to develop it … I want them to stop and hopefully they can stop now.”

Edjaz Heider, a defensive analyst based in Lahore, told the BBC that this is the only difference in previous cases.

“The American role was the continuation of the past samples, but with one key difference – this time they initially remained practical, watching the crisis unfolded and not jumping immediately. Only when they saw how he lost, they entered,” said Mr. Hyder.

Experts in Pakistan say that when the escalation cycle deepened, Pakistan directed “double signals”, causing the avenge that announced a meeting of the national team (NCA) – a clear reminder of nuclear.

NCA controls and makes prompt decisions regarding Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

It was a time when US Secretary of State Mark Rubio entered.

“The United States was necessary. This result would not happen without the effort of Rubio’s secretary,” said BBC Ashley J. Telis, senior employee of the Carnegie International Peace Foundation.

What also helped was the deepening of Washington from Delhi.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s personal connection with Trump, as well as wider strategic and economic share of the United States, gave a diplomatic lever of the US administration to push both nuclear armed rivals to de-escalation.

Indian diplomats see three key peace tracks that happened this time, as after Pulvam -Balakota in 2019:

• Pressure US and UK
• Saudi mediation when Saudi Junior Foreign Minister visited both capitals
• A direct channel of India-Pakistan between two national security advisers (NSAS)

Despite the shift of global priorities and a practical posture, the United States eventually entered as an indispensable mediator between South Asia’s nuclear competitors.

Regardless of the fact that they are inflated by their own officials, or dissatisfied with Delhi and Islamabad, experts believe that the role of the United States as the head of the crisis remains vital – and difficult – as ever.

The doubts, however, are delayed over the ceasefire after the event on Saturday, and some Indian media report that it was essentially initiated by high -ranking military officials of the two countries.

“This ceasefire will definitely be delicate. It happened very quickly, against the background of high tensions. India appears to be interpreted otherwise than in the US and Pakistan,” said BBC Michael Kugelman.

“In addition, as it was harvested so hastily, the agreement may lack the proper guarantees and assurances that will be required at such a tense moment.”