The India–Pakistan conflict escalates.

I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today's read: 16 minutes.

Tomorrow.

What happened to the baby formula shortage? Tomorrow, we’re going to be revisiting a story that felt like it’d have catastrophic consequences and then… faded away. We’re considering making this a regular Tangle series — where we revisit stories that captivated the country before becoming quickly forgotten — and this is a perfect piece to kick it off.

Quick hits.

1. President Donald Trump announced a trade agreement with Britain that will roll back U.S. tariffs on British steel, aluminum, and automobiles in return for increased access to British markets for American exports, such as beef, ethanol, and other farm products. Trump said the 10% baseline tariff on global imports would remain in place, and details of the deal would be finalized in the coming weeks. (The announcement)
2. The Federal Reserve held its benchmark overnight borrowing rate in a range between 4.25%–4.5%, where it has been since December 2024, after its meeting on Wednesday. The Fed said it will assess the economic impact of President Trump’s trade policies before changing the rate. (The decision)
3. President Trump announced Dr. Casey Means as his nominee for surgeon general after pulling his initial nomination of Dr. Janette Nesheiwat. (The announcement)
4. A federal judge instructed the Trump administration that it cannot deport immigrants to Libya, Saudi Arabia, or any other country where they are not citizens without due process. (The order)
5. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will meet with China’s top economic official in Switzerland later this week. The meeting is expected to kick off talks on a potential trade deal. (The meeting)

Today's topic.

Rising tensions between India and Pakistan. On Wednesday, the Indian government said it conducted several airstrikes in Pakistan-controlled territory. While India called the strikes a success, at least two of its military aircraft were reportedly lost in the operation. Pakistani military officials said at least 31 people were killed in the strikes or by artillery fire. 

Back up: India said the strikes were in retaliation for an April mass shooting in Pahalgam, an Indian-administered town in the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir, that killed 26 people (primarily Hindu tourists) and wounded 17 others — the deadliest attack against civilians in India since 2008. India has accused the Pakistani government of supporting the militants who carried out the attack and on Wednesday claimed it had “credible leads, technical inputs, testimony of the survivors and other evidence pointing towards the clear involvement of Pakistan-based terrorists in this attack.” Pakistan has denied any involvement.

More history: India and Pakistan have engaged in a decades-long conflict over the region of Kashmir since 1947, when the United Kingdom divided British India into two independent nations — India and Pakistan, with the latter then divided further into West Pakistan and East Pakistan (modern-day Bangladesh). The partition set off a wave of violence and displacement, with millions of Muslims fleeing to West and East Pakistan, while millions of Hindus and Sikhs fled to India as each side fought for control of disputed territories. 

India and Pakistan both claim complete control over Kashmir, and each country administers a section of the territory divided by a militarized ceasefire line established in 1949 (later known as the Line of Control). Two subsequent wars and a limited conflict were fought over Kashmir, most recently in 1999, but the sides agreed to a ceasefire without agreeing on the fate of the region in 2003. Kashmir remains a source of conflict, with an ongoing armed insurgency against Indian rule, separatist violence, and regular military operations. Both governments have also engaged in tit-for-tat measures since the Pahalgam attack. India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, and experts and political leaders have long warned that the hostilities could eventually spill over into a nuclear conflict. 

The Washington Post published a detailed explainer on the history of the conflict here.

On Wednesday, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called India’s airstrikes an “act of war” and said “a strong response is indeed being given.” Additionally, Pakistani security forces claimed to have shot down five Indian Air Force jets and one drone during India’s attack, describing a series of missile exchanges involving a total of 125 fighter jets. However, both countries have since signaled caution, with India describing the strikes as non-escalatory and Pakistan saying it would only pursue a proportional response and would “never target civilians.” 

President Donald Trump offered to help resolve the conflict. “We get along with both countries very well, good relationships with both, and I want to see it stop. And if I can do anything to help, I will,” Trump said. Furthermore, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has corresponded with Sharif and Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar in the past week in an attempt to ease tensions between the sides. 

China, which shares a border with India and Pakistan, also called for de-escalation. “India and Pakistan are neighbours who cannot be moved away, and both are also China’s neighbours. China opposes all forms of terrorism,” the Chinese foreign ministry said on Wednesday.

Today, we’ll cover the latest in the conflict, with views from the left, right, and Indian and Pakistani writers. Then, my take.

Agreed.

• Writers across the political spectrum and abroad agree that the risk of war between India and Pakistan has increased.
• Many also say that the conflict could further destabilize the global order.

What the left is saying.

• The left is troubled by the latest in the conflict, with many saying the risk of war is as high as it has been in many years.
• Some worry that the conflict could soon spill outside Kashmir.

In The New York Times, Meher Ahmad suggested “this India-Pakistan skirmish is not like the others.”

“Longtime watchers of this contentious region of the world often call these incidents skirmishes. Rarely do they escalate into all-out war; rather they end after some militaristic back-and-forth and threats lobbed by politicians in media statements and shows of force geared toward releasing the nationalistic blood lust that often comes in the wake of a deadly terrorist attack,” Ahmad wrote. “The last serious skirmish, in 2019, ended after India dropped bombs in the wooded hills near a madrasa that it claimed was harboring terrorists and Pakistan dropped some munitions on the Indian side soon after. Things remained touchy for a time — the news media cycle in both countries was sent into jingoistic overdrive — before returning to the uneasy middle ground India and Pakistan often find themselves in.”

“I had hoped for the same outcome for the two nations in this latest iteration of this long conflict. India and Pakistan share so much with one another: a rich culture and history and millions in each country who originally called the other side home,” Ahmad said. “But the attacks early Wednesday were very different: The Indian military did not drop bombs in the middle of the woods this time. The strikes hit near major population hubs, and Pakistani military officials said that more than 20 people, including a child, have died. It’s hard to imagine this skirmish will end in a TV spectacle and memes.”

In Bloomberg, James Stavridis said “India and Pakistan can’t let conflict spill into the sea.”

“Leaders of both nuclear-armed powers are fanning the flames. Most ominously, the chief of the Pakistani army, General Syed Asim Munir, said any attack by India will be ‘met with a swift, resolute and notch-up response.’ Where is this spiral of threats headed?,” Stavridis asked. “India has many options for further retaliation short of full-on combat. It could choose a cyberattack against critical Pakistani infrastructure; launch special forces against what it regards as terrorist organizations operating in Pakistan’s territory, as it did in 2016; undertake precision air strikes, as it did in 2019; or initiate artillery barrages along the Kashmiri border.”

“But a less obvious thing I worry about — as a naval officer who sailed many long voyages on the Indian Ocean — is the possibility of the conflict spilling over to the sea. The world’s third-largest ocean affords plenty of options for maritime adventurism. Leaders of both nations may see the use of naval forces as less potentially escalatory,” Stavridis wrote. “But trust me: Military confrontation at sea can escalate all too easily. A strategy of naval brinkmanship could bring the nations closer to broader war… India and Pakistan would be wise to avoid inflaming tensions not only in Kashmir and across the subcontinent, but also on the wide expanse of the Indian Ocean.”

What the right is saying.

• The right aligns with India’s view of the conflict and hopes the strikes act as an effective deterrent to further military action.
• Some suggest the countries are doomed to continue this cycle of violence.

In The Wall Street Journal, Sadanand Dhume said “India tries to subdue the threat from Pakistan.”

“Dealing with Pakistan—an unstable nation bristling with armed jihadists—is a serious challenge for India. New Delhi must find a way to deter Pakistan-army-backed jihadist groups that have long sheltered under Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella while factoring in Islamabad’s support from China, which calls Pakistan its ‘iron brother,’” Dhume wrote. “The West, too, has a Pakistan problem, although it’s more manageable. The Biden administration imposed sanctions on Pakistan’s missile program last year over fears that the country was developing long-range ballistic missile capabilities that could threaten the U.S., and people of Pakistani origin have been implicated in terrorist attacks in the U.S. and the U.K.”

“While sympathizing with India over terrorism, the Trump administration has made it clear it isn’t interested in getting overly involved in the India-Pakistan conflict… Washington should nonetheless hope India succeeds in moderating the Pakistani army’s appetite for risk,” Dhume said. “Indians are right to wonder why Pakistan picks fights with a larger neighbor. It happens in large part because in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the army—steeped in hostility toward “Hindu India”—calls the shots. For India, ending the symbiosis between the Pakistani army and jihadism in the near term may not be possible. But New Delhi has no choice but to try.”

In Creators Syndicate, Austin Bay wrote about “terror, nukes, and reunion.”

“Should this war go hot, India will win, but Mumbai and Delhi will have Gaza craters. Islamabad? A radioactive memory — and the real victor is China,” Bay said. India and Pakistan have “a lot in common, including cricket, but they kill each other. Serbo-Croat is similar. Serbs are Orthodox Christians who write in Cyrillic. Croats are Catholics who use Latin letters. They're both Slavs, speaking the same language but divided by politics and religion and alphabets. And they often kill each other. Pakistan and India however possess nuclear weapons.”

“Will Kashmir lead to a nuclear war in 2025? I say no, because Pakistan knows India will win and no one sane wants radioactive craters. Is there a solution? The post-World War II partition of British India was a blood-drenched mess. Since partition, India has prospered. Pakistan has not,” Bay wrote. “In retrospect, splitting British India into West Pakistan (now Pakistan), East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and India may have been one of the 20th century's greatest geostrategic errors. If religion and politics divide them, culture, common sense and common decency unite them. But reuniting India? Political fantasy!”

What Indian and Pakistani writers are saying.

• Many Indian writers praise the government’s response, saying it sent a message without risking wider war.
• Conversely, Pakistani writers express concern that the retaliatory attacks will have repercussions in both countries.

In The Indian Express, Arun Prakash called India’s strikes “an apt and timely response to Pahalgam.”

The strikes “should have served to fulfil two underlying objectives in the larger framework of the India-Pakistan power play. First, this was an overdue act of ‘retribution’ to assuage justified public and political outrage at the barbaric and faith-based gunning down of 26 tourists in Pahalgam, Kashmir,” Prakash wrote. “Secondly, no matter how spectacular or satisfying an act of ‘retribution’ may seem to the public, it can only be classified as a tactical-level response. What the Indian state actually needs to establish (or re-establish) vis-à-vis Pakistan is ‘conventional deterrence’ as part of a well-thought-out strategy.”

“India can thus re-establish conventional deterrence vis-à-vis Pak provided Indian security planners are mindful of two factors. First, the initial wave of kinetic strikes may need to be followed up with more, and the public should be prepared for attrition, loss of life and the distinct possibility of escalation. At the same time, while public opinion may demand a ‘jaw for a tooth,’ our military leadership should remain wary of the ‘escalation’ ladder — easy to step on but difficult to jump off,” Prakash said. “Given the nuclear shadow that hangs over the Subcontinent, Indian planners have taken care to send clear signals of India’s non-escalatory intent by using only aircraft-launched weapons and not ballistic missiles, and also, by avoiding Pak military units/establishments and targeting only terrorist hubs.”

In Dawn, Arifa Noor wrote about “after the stand-off.”

“On the Pakistani side, government officials are no longer publicly providing a countdown of when an attack is suspected, while the info minister is also boasting of victory of the bayania,” Noor said. “On the Indian side, too, some events suggest a de-escalation, or is being interpreted as such. The cabinet security committee meeting ended with the prime minister authorising freedom to the military to decide on the response. This was followed by another meeting which announced a caste survey, something the BJP had been resisting and the opposition party, the Congress had been asking for.”

“In this war of ‘retaliation’ and more, neither side wants an escalation, which is not just possible but also capable of causing great destruction. Still, the one-upmanship the two sides have prepared their domestic audiences for has bound them in varying degrees. And this aspect — the domestic fallout — will prove important in the near future as the crisis plays out. After all, one can safely say that compared to 2019, both Islamabad and New Delhi have weaker governments. And in case of a fallout, there will be a price to pay domestically.”

My take.

Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• It is remarkable how similar this conflict is to others roiling the globe right now.
• While Pakistan has plenty of agency, India has a lot of power in this dynamic, and what they decide to do next will be key. 
• Ultimately, I can’t say I’m optimistic about the leaders of either country stepping back from the brink.

When I think about the India–Pakistan conflict, I see strong parallels to the discord in other parts of the world today: Israel and Palestine, Russia and Ukraine, North Korea and South Korea, Armenia and Azerbaijan, China and Taiwan. With these conflicts, I’m always struck by the volume of shared culture, language, history, and identity these groups tend to have. 

To a large degree, these are all the same peoples who have fractured and divided over decades (or centuries) and come to view each other as so different, so malignant, that they think war and conflict is the only way out. It’s one of the great and depressing ironies of our present day — that the groups an outsider would have the hardest time telling apart are often the ones spending the most time shedding each other’s blood.

To state the obvious: The situation in India and Pakistan is not good. These are two nuclear powers with a deep and passionate distrust of each other, which is almost worse than a dislike (though that’s also present here). While the tit-for-tat strikes continued overnight, both sides seem to be looking for an off-ramp, which is encouraging.

The problem, of course, is that these kinds of conflicts can spin out of control quickly. One side accidentally strikes a religious site or kills civilians in what was supposed to be a military offense, and then things devolve rapidly. 

In this case, several lingering questions illustrate the distrust and danger. Most relevant is the question of who actually committed the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam. India has not exactly been forthcoming with the evidence that Pakistan supported the attackers, and the Pakistan-based jihadi group that claimed responsibility for the attack then bizarrely retracted its claim, saying it was “hacked.” Such retractions are not uncommon and often reflect internal or external political pressure, though it does add to the current fog of war. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi revoked visas for all Pakistani nationals in India, separating families at the border, and then Pakistan responded in kind. 

Modi, apparently thirsting to punish as many people as possible for what happened, is now promising to stop the flow of water into Pakistan by illegally abandoning a 65-year-old water treaty, which could upend farming and food supply for millions of people across the region. What’s happening on the ground in India is equally terrifying; already commonplace abuse of Muslims has ramped up, including language from India’s leaders that mirrors Israeli leaders’ statements in the wake of October 7 — all signaling a lust to draw blood for blood.

Naturally, Kashmir and its people are caught in the middle of this conflict. Its neighbor Pakistan has a history of harboring jihadist groups, and Pakistan’s refusal to take full accountability for that reality has added to India’s distrust. Pakistan’s civilian leadership often lacks full control of the country (the military is considered the de facto leadership), leading to a general air of disorder. And Kashmiris live among armies of soldiers, literally millions, functioning as a partly occupied territory that is run by both India and Pakistan, and even a little bit of China, though a growing number simply want independence. It’s all a very familiar and dark story in today’s tense state of world affairs.

If I were in Modi’s shoes, the choice for a path forward could not be more plain. In fact, you can look back to India’s history for examples of the path to pursue. In the 2008 Mumbai attacks known as “26/11,” ten militants from a Pakistan-linked group arrived in Mumbai and carried out coordinated attacks across four days. They killed 174 people and wounded over 300. India had to decide what to do, and in a great act of diplomatic wisdom, it decided not to condemn tens of millions of people to war (and potentially nuclear war) and instead refused to carry out a military response.

Rather than begin the exchange of bombs, then-Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh won the diplomatic war. His reward was international praise, unity against extremism in Pakistan, and increased pressure on Pakistan to do more to root out its extremist elements. While India was initially criticized as being “soft on terrorism,” its decision actually resulted in major gains in its diplomatic credibility, years of relative peace and stability, and eventually a more sophisticated intelligence and military ability to avoid similar attacks.

So that is one path.

The other path is what we saw in the wake of October 7, 2023. Israel — tens of thousands of dead Palestinians and hundreds of dead Israeli soldiers later — is still fighting this war a year and a half in. The entire region is now destabilized, with Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran all activated in various kinds of kinetic warfare. Israeli citizens have been torn apart at the seams, with domestic turmoil about the current government and the path forward, while still facing imminent threats (just days ago, the Ben Gurion airport had to be shut down after a strike by the Houthis). Gazans are living in an absolute hellscape, stuck in the constant torment of relocation while Israeli bombs rain from the sky and Hamas brutalizes anyone who objects to its disastrous rule. Now, Israel’s plan for the future looks increasingly like an unambiguous occupation and ethnic cleansing of the entire Gaza strip. 

Or, in perhaps a closer analogy, India could look to Russia and Ukraine, two countries (like India and Pakistan) with more advanced militaries and eerily similar historical ties. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians have died, millions have fled their homes, the daily horrors have now become the norm, each country’s economy has been disrupted, and the violence and military threats are upending normal life (even for Russia, the aggressor).

From where I sit, it could not be more glaringly obvious what path forward is best for India, Pakistan, and the civilians of each country. At this moment we need leaders who can see with that kind of clarity — but my fear, increasingly, is that we don’t have them. 

Take the survey: Do you think a war between India and Pakistan is imminent? Let us know!

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Help share Tangle.

I'm a firm believer that our politics would be a little bit better if everyone were reading balanced news that allows room for debate, disagreement, and multiple perspectives. If you can take 15 seconds to share Tangle with a few friends I'd really appreciate it — just click the button below and pick some people to email it to!

• Email Tangle to a friend by clicking here.
• Share Tangle on X/Twitter by clicking here.
• Share Tangle on Facebook by clicking here.

Your questions, answered.

Q: Is it time to scrap the reader survey? Or at least publishing the results? You have acknowledged the obvious, that Tangle's audience has shifted to the political left. I know you personally attempt to consider all viewpoints, but that doesn't seem to apply to your readership. Every day as I read your survey, I know the results in advance. If there is an anti-Trump or a left-leaning option, it will win the day. Often now, I don't even bother to add my center-right perspective or do more than glance at (or skip entirely) the previous results. Perhaps it is helpful for you, as it helps monitor the inclinations of your readers. For those readers, however, this is now reliably a foregone conclusion.

— Keith from Barnwell, SC

Tangle: This is another potential change we’ve recently been discussing. And since we got such a productive response from our readers about experimenting with how we present summaries of arguments across the political spectrum, we thought it was time to discuss this question, too.

You’re right: Our readership has shifted since our feature on This American Life, and our survey results reflect that. Maybe part of that is due to an increase in vocal criticism of a new administration that’s aggressively pursued its agenda. Maybe it’s been supercharged by a negative feedback effect, where you don’t want to offer your opinion if you know it’s not going to be “the winner” (this is a real thing, by the way). 

Regardless of the reason, it’s clear that we aren’t getting the range of results we used to get from our daily poll. That’s not necessarily a bad thing — as we’ve said before, our poll isn’t scientific by any stretch of the imagination, but it is telling us something about our audience. However, we are worried that the results could be degrading our readers’ trust in our coverage, skewing our understanding of our readers, and maybe even influencing our topic selection. Which is a problem.

Of course, it would also be a problem if we just stopped surveying altogether. “Nonpartisan news outlet that emphasizes transparency stops publishing results because they aren’t getting what they want” is a pretty bad headline. So to find a way to solicit reader perspectives while ensuring they’re actually representative of the diverse ideologies that come to Tangle, we had a couple of ideas. Maybe we don’t offer the survey every day. Maybe we keep the survey narrow and just ask about whether you agree with the take. Maybe we use the survey to solicit ideas on stories to cover, or to ask people their feelings about breaking news events. Maybe we just ask more casual questions related to other topics in the news and culture.

Alternatively, we could go the other way. We could work with a seasoned pollster or data scientist and make our surveys less frequent but more scientific, and begin weighing the results to seek a meaningful understanding of the country more broadly. 

You may have noticed this answer uses the word “maybe” a lot. We aren’t sure what to do right now, and we definitely don’t know what the Tangle community thinks. Let’s start there: What do you want to see from our reader surveys? And for that matter, what do you think about yesterday’s reader question about changing how we group our summaries?

Please take two minutes and answer this survey to let us know. Thank you!

Under the radar.

Diabetes deaths in the United States have fallen to their lowest level in years, according to preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In Q3 2024, the rate of deaths linked to diabetes was 26.4 per 100,000, continuing a downward trend from 2021, when the rate peaked at 31.1 deaths per 100,000 (diabetes was the eighth leading cause of death that year). Scientists and experts suggest that the diabetes death rate and Covid-19 pandemic were closely linked, and the falling rate signals a return to pre-pandemic levels. CBS News has the story.

Numbers.

• 1.45 billion. The approximate population of India as of 2025.
• $2,710. India’s approximate gross domestic product (GDP, in U.S. dollars) per capita in 2024. 
• 240.54 million. The approximate population of Pakistan as of 2025.
• $1,580. Pakistan’s approximate GDP per capita in 2024. 
• 10 million and 4.5 million. The approximate population of Indian-administrated Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistani-administered Kashmir, respectively, as of 2023. 
• 55%. The approximate percentage of land in Kashmir controlled by India. 
• 30%. The approximate percentage of land in Kashmir controlled by Pakistan. 
• 15%. The approximate percentage of land in Kashmir controlled by China. 
• 460. The length, in miles, of the de facto “Line of Control” separating India- and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
• 1,500. The approximate number of people detained by Indian authorities in India-administered Kashmir following the Pahalgam attack on April 22.

The extras.

• One year ago today we covered then-candidate Trump’s top contenders for vice president.
• The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was Trump’s plan to send migrants to Libya.
• Nothing to do with politics: Why you shouldn’t keep open cans in the fridge.
• Yesterday’s survey: 1,919 readers answered our survey on a tariff on movies produced outside the U.S. with 51% opposing the government helping the industry and the tariff. “Let the global economy and free trade sort it out! Many things that have hurt the industry are individual events (wildfires, Covid-19, the writer's strike). The industry should be allowed to find its new normal with all these things behind them,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

Four months ago, U.S. swimmer Gary Hall Jr. lost his Olympic medals in the Los Angeles wildfires. In an unconventional ceremony at the International Olympic Committee headquarters on Monday, Hall was presented with 10 replica medals — five golds, three silvers, and two bronzes — to replace the originals from three Summer Games. “Having friends and family, I am a very lucky man,” Hall said. “The support that I was offered from the athletic community has buoyed me through the darkest of nights.” The Associated Press has the story.

Don't forget...

💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.

🎉 Want to reach 380,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.