Western media quoted- "...White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles had been closely monitoring the escalating conflict between India and Pakistan when, on Friday morning, the U.S. received alarming intelligence, Trump administration officials told CNN. While they declined to describe the nature of the information, citing its sensitivity, they said it was critical in persuading three key officials that the U.S. should increase its involvement."
When probed further, a reliable source revealed that India's bombardment — potentially landed on 11 airbases and army facilities of Pakistan — came dangerously close to locations where Pakistan allegedly stores its nuclear weapons.
Had any of these blasts struck those storage sites, the resulting disaster would have been catastrophic — a doomsday scenario for Pakistan.
Due to the extreme sensitivity of this issue, Pakistan reportedly withheld exact details about the locations of its nuclear arsenal, even to the United States, but informed the nature of danger. However, according to a credible U.S. media source, the "nature of the information" not disclosed by the White House may have involved these very concerns.
Additionally, another source claimed that Pakistan conducted internal checks of its nuclear weapons and even tested a fraction of their potential. This reportedly triggered earthquakes of approximately magnitude 5 at multiple locations on May 10th, though Pakistan has not disclosed the epicenter.
This "alarming intelligence" is believed to have triggered fears in Washington of a large scale catastrophe, prompting U.S. intervention to prevent further escalation.
Another perspective also suggests that the U.S. intervened to halt the conflict because Pakistan's F-16 fighter jets proved ineffective against India’s indigenous air defense systems. With the U.S. relying on F-16 sales to other countries, a prolonged war exposing the aircraft’s vulnerabilities could damage American defense exports. Thus, U.S. leadership may have acted decisively to preserve both regional stability and strategic interests.
Whether it's one or a combination of these three possible scenarios, the ceasefire decision appears to have been shaped by more than just diplomacy — it was rooted in grave geopolitical, business and security concerns.
