[This is an excerpt from an article in The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs and Policy Studies. Opinions expressed do not reflect the position of the Round Table editorial board.]
Commonwealth confrontation case: India – Pakistan, May 2025
The crisis escalated on 7 May, when India launched Operation Sindoor, targeting several areas in Pakistan with BrahMos missiles and drones. In response, Pakistan launched Bunyanum Marsoos—a swift retaliation that included air interceptions (downing multiple Indian jets, including three Rafales), and measured artillery and aerial strikes. Despite the initial exchange, both sides showed restraint, preventing a full-scale war. By 10 May, a US-brokered ceasefire took hold (Abid, Citation2025).
This four-day confrontation demonstrated DDF in action: both states employed rapid-response military capabilities – ranging from cruise missiles to aerial defence systems – while deliberately avoiding actions that could trigger an uncontrollable escalation. Each side appeared to signal strength while leaving space for diplomacy, showing how nuclear-armed rivals now navigate conflict under the constraints of modern deterrence logic.
The three axes of the flux
Iran’s launch of ballistic missiles from its own soil at American bases in Qatar demonstrated the Tehran government’s immediate retaliation capacity. Even though the missiles were intercepted, the speed of the Iranian response was a signal – directed both domestically and internationally.
The Tehran government also showed clear concern for its long-term survival strategy. Iranian leaders understood that going too far could destabilise the economy or provoke regime change. They showed strength to their population without closing diplomatic doors. Notably, they avoided blocking the Strait of Hormuz – a move that could have triggered a global economic crisis (Ransom, Citation2025).
Finally, Iran exercised escalation control. Its limited strike helped create space for diplomacy. President Trump’s ceasefire declaration – although not immediately confirmed – suggested that Iran’s calibrated actions lowered tensions. Markets responded quickly: oil prices dropped 7%, and diplomatic intermediaries such as Qatar and Oman stepped in to support negotiations.
Deterrence as process, not event
Dynamic Deterrence Flux challenges the classical notion of deterrence as a static condition of fear-based equilibrium. In today’s environment, deterrence is a process: a series of shifting actions and reactions. It is multilayered: involving military, diplomatic, economic, and informational domains. Furthermore, deterrence is non-linear: a strike does not always lead to escalation; a warning may serve as retaliation. In this framework, Iran’s response was not merely symbolic but strategically optimised to serve multiple audiences and objectives.
India – Pakistan: A plea for peace
India’s Pakistan policy: from 2016 ‘surgical strike’ to 2019 Balakot ‘airstrike’
Broader implications and applications
While this framework is grounded in the two recent conflicts, the relevance of DDF extends well beyond the Middle East and South Asia. Similar dynamics are evident in other geopolitical arenas. In Russia – NATO relations, particularly around the Black Sea and Eastern Europe, low-intensity hybrid operations frequently test strategic red lines without triggering open warfare. North Korea’s missile diplomacy similarly involves carefully calibrated provocations designed to shift diplomatic narratives and gain leverage without sparking uncontrollable escalation. Meanwhile, India – Pakistan border incidents continue to follow a pattern of tightly managed tit-for-tat retaliation, aimed at avoiding nuclear confrontation or broader economic fallout – especially under close international scrutiny, including from fellow Commonwealth states.
In all these cases, the Dynamic Deterrence Flux model offers valuable insights into how states manage tension, project strength, and maintain strategic credibility without tipping into full-scale war. It provides a useful interpretive lens for scholars and policymakers seeking to understand the subtleties of modern deterrence in a technology-driven, multipolar international order.
Conclusion: towards a new strategic doctrine
The crises of May and June 2025, including India-Pakistan military standoff and the Iran-Israel-U.S. confrontation, offer clear examples of a world in which military power, strategic communication, and diplomatic agility must coexist in tight synchrony.
The Dynamic Deterrence Flux model captures this shift. DDF offers analysts, policymakers, and scholars a model to assess not only how conflicts begin and end, but how they are constantly recalibrated in real time. In this age of AI, as international threats grow more complex and statecraft becomes more data-driven and instantaneous, the need for such a model becomes increasingly urgent. In this evolving landscape classical international relations theories such as balance of power, balance of threat, defensive and offensive realism, and liberal institutionalism often fall short in explaining how deterrence functions in live, fast-moving conflicts. These frameworks, while foundational, were not built for a world shaped by real-time media cycles, AI-driven targeting systems, and intense domestic political pressures. This is precisely why Dynamic Deterrence Flux should now be considered a foundational tool for understanding international crises in the digital, multipolar world.
Rahat Shah, School of Liberal Arts, Shanghai University, Shanghai, China.
