Indian and Pakistani diplomats believe that while the new ceasefire deal over Kashmir was welcome, it will take a lot more to address the long-term distrust between the two countries. Experts from both sides spoke to DW.After four days of intense hostilities and concerns that India and Pakistan would engage in an all-out war, the US played a decisive active role in mediating a ceasefire between the two countries over the disputed Kashmir region. But foreign policy experts and diplomats from both countries believe that though the de-escalation might mark the end of the two countries' worst military confrontation in 25 years, the foreign-brokered ceasefire will not lead easily to an enduring peace. US mediation provided a useful off-ramp for both nations, according to diplomatic analysts from both countries. "The US has played a helpful role in getting Pakistan to agree to a ceasefire," Meera Shankar, India's former envoy to the US, told DW. "The US leveraged IMF conditionalities and much more to hasten the end of hostilities," said Ajay Bisaria, a former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan. "India has established a new doctrinal normal of zero tolerance to terrorism, which has garnered US acceptance." Both sides 'made their point' Analysts on the Pakistani side agreed. "Pakistan and India both needed a ceasefire but neither country wanted to be the one that asked for it first due to national pride and leaders' egos. The US helped provide cover for the decision," Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador currently senior fellow at Washington DC's Hudson Institute, told DW. According to Haqqani, India wanted Pakistan to know that terrorist incidents will not be ignored. Pakistan wanted to convey to India that it will not roll over and play dead. Both sides have made their point, he said. Haqqani also believes that both countries used the military escalation to test the other's resolve and find the strengths and weaknesses of their defenses. "Both realize that they cannot prevail in a war without inflicting and sustaining massive destruction," said Haqqani. Maleeha Lodhi, an international affairs expert and former Pakistan ambassador to the US and UN, also thought said the Trump administration's role had been indispensable. "In all past crises between the two adversaries since 1999 the US has mediated to bring them to an end," she said. Lodhi thinks that easing tensions will take a longer time. "The ceasefire will hold as both countries have agreed to it and have no advantage in violating it. However, easing tensions will take much longer," she added. Madiha Afzal, a fellow at Brookings Institute, called the ceasefire a welcome move. "Trump manages to, as he did in his first administration, sound relatively impartial when he talks about both countries, which is significant given his relationship with Modi and the strong US-India relationship," said Afzal. "That tone is something Pakistan appreciates." Afzal also highlighted that this could open the door to better Washington-Islamabad relations. Mediators: US, Saudi Arabia, and Iran While the involvement of the US was important, Saudi Arabia and Iran also emerged as key mediators due to their strong economic and diplomatic ties with both India and Pakistan. According to highly placed diplomatic sources, both Saudi Arabia's minister of state for foreign affairs Adel Aljubeir and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi leveraged their countries' historical ties with both nations to mediate. Some on the Indian side argue that recent events showed the outsized power of the Pakistani army in the country's government system. Deepa Gopalan Wadhwa, a former diplomat, told DW: "These events portray the Pakistani army as 'rogue' and reflect internal disconnects with the civilian government. There still appears to be some differences between the civilian and military leadership there on the question of ceasing hostilities. They need to sort this out." Wadhwa, a former diplomat, told DW that the recent interactions between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of India and Pakistan have been important in attempting to manage the tensions. "The escalation despite the DGMO-mediated ceasefire highlights the fragility of such agreements in the context of deep-seated mistrust and the complex dynamics of civil-military relations, particularly in Pakistan," she added. The DGMOs have agreed to speak again on May 12. Is peace sustainable? Indian defense strategist Brigadier S K Chatterji warned that the deal was no guarantee of future stability. "Notwithstanding US involvement, third party mediation being accepted as a norm by India is unlikely in future," he told DW. Analysts believe that, despite mutual accusations of violations, the ceasefire is likely to hold in the short term, largely due to international pressure and both countries' recognition of the costs of escalation. "I hope that the ceasefire stabilizes and holds," said India's former US envoy Shankar. "It is not in the interest of either country or peace and stability in the region to have a larger military conflict. Relations with Pakistan are likely to continue to be challenging." Former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan Bisaria warned that various issues, including terrorism and water security, still posed long-term challenges. "India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and trade bans, along with Pakistan's economic constraints, will keep relations strained." Nevertheless, he added, "medium-term stabilization is possible." For now, both militaries remain on high alert but the risk of further flare-ups — for instance through misinterpreting drone activity or artillery fire — remains high, especially in contested areas along the Line of Control (LoC) "The ceasefire will not hold good permanently. Pakistan will also fight the abeyance of the Indus Water Treaty by India tooth and nail," said Chatterji. "However, the infrastructure required to divert water flow into India, substantially, will take time. If India can calibrate the flow as a reward to Pakistan for the jihadi establishment being progressively eliminated, it would be ideal." Elizabeth Threlkeld, director of South Asia department at the Washington-based Stimson Center, told DW: "What's most important in my view is that it has been agreed and that both sides should remain committed to preventing any violations. Much work is needed going forward to ensure we don't see a repeat of this crisis, and that should be the primary focus for both sides, the US, and other international partners supporting this effort." This article was originally published on May 11, 2025. Edited by Ben Knight