Frustrated by his failed efforts to mediate between Russia and Ukraine and also, increasingly, by the Israeli president’s refusal to heed him on Palestine, US President Donald Trump desperately needed a diplomatic victory. He has now got one. The Trump administration has successfully brokered the ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan, in a conflict that was threatening to get out of hand. Initially, the Americans appeared reluctant to intervene in what was “none of their business”. But as intelligence reports started pouring in that the conflict could spiral out of control, they swung into action. US Vice-President JD Vance called Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, trying to impress on him the gravity of the matter and to persuade him to open communication lines with Islamabad. After this, Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, worked the phone through the night as he mediated between senior Indian and Pakistani officials. American intervention worked. The India-Pakistan truce, as fragile as it is, might be Trump’s single biggest foreign policy achievement in his second term as president. As expected, New Delhi has been reluctant to give the Americans any credit, while the Pakistanis are all praise for Trump. Pakistan has always wanted to internationalise the issue of Kashmir and the American mediation offers them a chance to ask for more international attention on the issue. India, on the other hand, has had a bad experience of inviting external mediation in its past conflicts with Pakistan.

The US, nonetheless, has again shown that its clout as a mediator in international conflict is unmatched—despite the loss in its credibility as a responsible international actor following Trump’s re-election. Despite their willingness to do so, no other state or institution—Russia, China, the Gulf states, or the United Nations—came anywhere close to brokering the ceasefire. But what does this American willingness to act as a mediator in the India-Pakistan conflict mean for smaller countries in the region (bar India and Pakistan) who routinely find themselves caught between competing interests of New Delhi and Beijing? Is this a one-time thing? Or perhaps despite the recent cancellations of its vital aid projects, the US has not ‘abandoned’ South Asia, unlike what many in the region feared.

Again, however it came about, the ceasefire between these two nuclear-armed neighbours is a matter of huge relief for South Asia. What will follow is hard to predict. The Americans say high-level India-Pakistan talks in a neutral venue was part of the ceasefire deal. Again, the Indians won’t be easily persuaded on any external mediation. But then a way back to normalcy has to be found. Yet it is hard to imagine what shape or form this new ‘normalcy’ will take. Ever since the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, India has lobbied with governments all over the world to isolate Pakistan for its ‘sponsorship’ of terrorism. This initiative is likely to continue. So will efforts, both in India and Pakistan, to show that the objectives behind each side going into the conflict have been achieved. This war of words could add to mistrust. But then the ceasefire also offers hope—however tenuous—that the two sides will at least get talking and ensure that they return at least to the pre-April 22 status. So long as the situation whereby a terrorist attack can take the subcontinent on the brink of a nuclear war persists, people here will continue to feel vulnerable. It’s thus vital that India and Pakistan quickly work out some confidence building measures.