As Indian precision strikes under Operation Sindoor rattle Pakistan, Islamabad faces an even more jarring realisation—its most dependable escape route, Washington’s diplomatic intervention, is no longer available.

Historically, Pakistan has relied on the United States to mediate or de-escalate crises with India, offering it a convenient off-ramp whenever tensions spiked. That buffer has now disappeared. In a firm statement that signals a shift in American policy, U.S. Vice President JD Vance told Fox News that Washington would not intervene in the current military face-off.

“We can try to encourage both sides to calm things down, but this is not America’s war, and we’re not going to insert ourselves into something we can’t control,” Vance said.

To understand how significant this change is, one must look back at the Kargil conflict in 1999. At that time, Pakistan had infiltrated Indian territory in Kashmir and publicly denied involvement. As India mobilised its Strike Corps, U.S. satellites caught visuals of tanks and artillery moving across Rajasthan—an unmistakable sign of escalation.

Faced with the threat of a full-blown war, then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif rushed to meet U.S. President Bill Clinton. The outcome was swift—Sharif agreed to pull his forces out of Kargil. On July 12, he appeared on national television to announce the retreat, effectively ending the conflict.

This pattern of brinkmanship followed by a plea for international mediation has played out multiple times. In every instance, Pakistan used bluster—often including nuclear threats—as leverage before eventually turning to the U.S. for rescue.

But this time is different. After India launched Operation Sindoor in response to the terror attack in Pahalgam, Washington’s response was clear: it would not step in.

The U.S. position has been echoed by other influential voices. Former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, a Republican leader, supported India’s right to defend itself and dismissed Pakistan’s usual narrative of victimhood. “You don’t get to instigate and then ask for sympathy,” she wrote on X.

This neutral, if not pro-India stance, is a far cry from America’s Cold War-era policy. In 1971, the U.S. had even dispatched its Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal in a show of support for Pakistan. In 2001, during the standoff following the Indian Parliament attack, American diplomats were sent to both capitals to defuse tensions. Even in recent years, the Biden administration approved upgrades to Pakistan’s F-16s.

But JD Vance’s statement marks a turning point in Washington’s calculus, underscoring a growing alignment with India.

Meanwhile, Pakistan finds itself backed only by a narrow group of allies—namely China, Turkey, and Azerbaijan. Gulf nations like the UAE and Saudi Arabia have maintained neutrality or quietly leaned toward India, impressed by New Delhi’s proactive diplomacy and counterterrorism messaging.

India’s approach has evolved dramatically since Kargil. No longer content to play defense, it has embraced a doctrine of swift retaliation, visible in the 2016 surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot air raid. Today’s India acts decisively, without waiting for international permission.

In contrast, Pakistan’s internal crises—ranging from economic collapse and political instability to unrest in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa—have weakened its ability to wage conventional war. Despite its dependence on China and a few remaining allies, Islamabad lacks the strength to sustain prolonged conflict.

“There’s little we can do besides urging restraint,” Vance added. “We hope this doesn’t spiral into a broader war or, worse, a nuclear scenario. But right now, we believe that’s unlikely.”

With no quick diplomatic fix and growing isolation on the world stage, Pakistan is left with an uncomfortable choice: step back and face internal criticism, or risk taking on a stronger and more prepared India—alone.