In a stark warning, prominent US political scientist John Mearsheimer has sounded the alarm over the escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, describing the situation as having the “real potential for a real war”—including the possible use of nuclear weapons. The renewed tensions follow a recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which has prompted India to consider its retaliatory options.
Speaking to The Spectator, Mearsheimer emphasized that the absence of firm US diplomatic intervention could allow the situation to spiral dangerously out of control. Historically, the United States has played a crucial role in de-escalating similar crises between the two South Asian nations. “In the past, the United States has intervened in crises between these two countries to make sure that India didn’t launch a major strike on Pakistan,” he explained. Such actions, he noted, were key in preventing Pakistan from feeling cornered and resorting to nuclear force.
However, Mearsheimer expressed serious doubts about the Trump administration’s willingness—or capacity—to intervene in a similar fashion. “You don’t have the sense that the Trump administration is paying careful attention to this conflict,” he said, pointing out that President Trump appeared preoccupied with other global and domestic issues. “So it could be the case, let’s hope this is not the case, that this one could spin out of control.”
Delving into the military dynamics, Mearsheimer highlighted the conventional power imbalance between India and Pakistan, which he believes increases the risk of nuclear escalation. If Pakistan were to suffer heavy conventional losses in a conflict, it might turn to nuclear weapons as a last resort. While escalation is not inevitable, he warned that the mere presence of such a threat demands serious diplomatic engagement, particularly from the US. “None of this is to say war will happen,” he clarified, “but the potential is undeniably real.”
When asked about non-military tools like diplomacy or trade to defuse tensions, Mearsheimer remained skeptical. Given the strong ties between the Trump and Modi administrations, he said, “we are not likely to play hardball with Modi.” At best, he speculated, Trump might offer India incentives to step back from the brink, but there’s little evidence of such negotiations happening openly.
Adding another perspective, Pakistani-origin author Harris Sultan downplayed the likelihood of Pakistan launching a nuclear strike. Writing on X, he argued that the country’s military leadership—particularly under authoritarian regimes—would not risk total national destruction over a regional dispute. Even if India were to launch an offensive in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), Sultan suggested it might not trigger a nuclear retaliation. “Pakistani generals are unlikely to sacrifice the rest of Pakistan for PoK,” he said. In a hypothetical scenario, they might consider using a tactical nuclear weapon within their own territory to avoid an Indian counterstrike, but this would come at the cost of severe international and domestic consequences.
Meanwhile, US Vice President JD Vance echoed concerns about the global implications of the standoff. In an interview with Fox News, Vance said, “Our hope here is that India responds to this terrorist attack in a way that doesn’t lead to a broader regional conflict.” He urged Pakistan to cooperate with India in cracking down on terrorist networks, stressing that de-escalation must remain the priority.
With both countries armed with nuclear capabilities and a history of volatile relations, international experts are urging calm and calling for urgent diplomatic efforts to prevent this crisis from turning catastrophic.
