5/7 – International News & Geopolitical Analysis

Shortly after midnight on May 7, a barrage of Indian missiles struck multiple locations across Pakistan and Pakistani-administered Kashmir. The strikes—India’s most significant aerial attack on Pakistan in over half a century—came two weeks after a devastating terrorist assault in Indian-administered Kashmir that left 26 Hindu Indian citizens dead. India has attributed the attack to Pakistan-based militant groups, prompting a retaliatory operation aimed at neutralizing what it described as “terrorist infrastructure.”

With Operation Sindoor—named after the sacred vermilion worn by married Hindu women and symbolizing protection and mourning—India launched a complex and highly choreographed military response. The move escalated tensions between the two nuclear-armed rivals while stopping short of a full-scale conflict.

A Strategy of Escalated Deterrence

The Indian government had already laid the groundwork for its retaliatory campaign. In the days leading up to the strikes, New Delhi suspended the Indus Water Treaty—a longstanding agreement governing water distribution between the two countries. The symbolic and practical importance of this move underscored India’s growing willingness to expand its toolkit beyond diplomacy and sanctions. Pakistan quickly complained of disruptions in water flow, indicating immediate fallout from the suspension.

Simultaneously, India prepared for potential retaliation by initiating civil defense drills in major cities, cutting electricity in Delhi, and announcing a large-scale military exercise along the western border. These visible signals of wartime readiness conveyed both a show of strength and a message of preparedness to the public and Pakistan alike.

Indian defense sources told media outlets that the targets of the strike included the headquarters of militant groups Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) in Bahawalpur and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) in Muridke—two organizations with long-established ties to Pakistan’s military and intelligence apparatus. Another group, the Kashmir Resistance (or The Resistance Front), an alleged offshoot of LeT, claimed responsibility for the April 22 killings. These groups, long designated as terrorist organizations by India and many in the international community, have historically operated with relative impunity within Pakistan.

India launched its missiles from its own territory, with eports indicate that French-made Rafale jets deployed SCALP cruise missiles and Hammer smart bombs. The Indian Navy and Army were also involved, underscoring the operation’s joint-service nature. This shift in tactics suggests lessons learned from past encounters, especially with regard to avoiding aircraft losses and prisoner-of-war scenarios.

India claimed that nine sites were targeted—five in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and four in undisputed Pakistani territory. Striking undisputed Pakistani territory marked a notable escalation, indicating that India is willing to expand the geographical scope of its military responses to perceived terrorism. However, Indian officials maintained that the strikes were “focused, measured, and non-escalatory,” deliberately avoiding Pakistani military installations or civilian infrastructure.

Pakistan, however, painted a different picture. Officials there accused India of striking civilian areas, including two mosques, and claimed that at least 26 civilians were killed, and over 46 injured. Pakistan’s defense ministry denounced the strikes as “cowardly,” emphasizing that they were launched from Indian airspace and never breached Pakistani territory. Military spokespersons further insisted that the sites targeted were not militant bases but civilian structures.

Immediate Aftermath:

Following the strikes, Pakistani forces engaged in heavy shelling across the Line of Control (LoC), the de facto border dividing Kashmir. While this artillery exchange is customary during flare-ups, Pakistan’s leaders promised a broader response “at a time and place of our choosing.” Though some Pakistani officials claimed their forces had shot down multiple Indian jets, no independent verification has supported this assertion.

Given Pakistan’s sizable stockpile of cruise and ballistic missiles and its previous retaliatory airstrike in 2019, the threat of further escalation remains. However, experts suggest that Islamabad will likely tailor its response to satisfy domestic expectations without provoking an all-out war. Symbolic retaliation—such as strikes on low-value or uninhabited Indian targets—could allow Pakistan to save face while avoiding an uncontrollable spiral.

Meanwhile, Indian media outlets celebrated the operation as a measured act of justice. Indian Army officials declared “justice is served,” and the operation’s name—Sindoor—was widely interpreted as a tribute to a young naval officer slain in the April 22 attack, whose grieving widow had become a national symbol of loss and resilience.

International reactions to the incident were notably muted. In past crises, especially the 2019 Balakot-Pakistan exchange, the United States and other global powers scrambled to de-escalate tensions. This time, however, the Trump administration showed little urgency. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was briefed by Indian officials, but no major diplomatic intervention was announced.

President Donald Trump, informed of the developments at the White House, offered a characteristically disengaged response, noting that India and Pakistan have “been fighting for centuries” and expressing hope that “it ends very quickly.” His comments underscored the growing distance between U.S. leadership and direct involvement in South Asian security crises, leaving both countries to navigate the fallout largely on their own.

Analysis:

India’s Operation Sindoor illustrates the Modi administration’s evolving approach to cross-border terrorism. The strikes signal a break from past hesitance, showing a willingness to extend military action into undisputed Pakistani territory while staying below the threshold that might provoke full-blown war. By launching missiles from within its own airspace, India avoided the pitfalls of aerial engagement while still delivering a potent message.

At the same time, India’s calibrated restraint—avoiding Pakistani military targets and framing the strikes as counter-terrorism rather than an act of war—suggests a deliberate attempt to maintain control over the escalation ladder. New Delhi’s broader strategy appears to be the reinforcement of deterrence without triggering open conflict.

Pakistan, for its part, faces a dilemma. Domestic pressure for a retaliatory show of force is real, especially amid growing civilian casualties and the symbolic weight of Indian incursions. Yet Islamabad is constrained by its economic instability, international isolation, and the risk of spiraling into a conflict it is ill-prepared to sustain. The likely outcome is a choreographed counter-strike—carefully designed to be noticed but not catastrophic.

Still, the stakes are high. The normalization of missile exchanges between two nuclear-armed states—even in retaliation for terror attacks—pushes the region closer to instability. As both nations dig in on hardened narratives of righteousness and revenge, the prospects for long-term peace in Kashmir remain grim.

Operation Sindoor may have achieved India’s immediate objective—demonstrating resolve and capability in the face of terror—but it also inches the subcontinent closer to a dangerous new normal where limited military engagements become routine. The cost of that normalization could be high, especially as public sentiment, political pride, and military momentum threaten to outpace diplomacy.