Media coverage on Syria over the past few weeks has been decidedly Western-centric, focusing on the roles of the U.S. and Russia and the implications of their involvement in the conflict. According to mainstream news, the military intervention, which is not backed by the U.N. Security Council, is likely to lead to global war. Given this depiction, it makes little and less sense not to consider the ramifications of the strike on countries further east.

Meanwhile, two South Asian nations with a history of being unable to agree on almost anything have united to speak out against the military intervention in Syria. The united front presented by India and Pakistan, who have been in conflict since India’s partition in 1947, is founded on shared economic, electoral and security concerns. This mutual opposition to U.S. involvement in Syria is made all the more striking by recent clashes between the two countries.

On Aug. 5, Pakistani soldiers, operating in conjunction with armed militants, beheaded five members of the Indian military. The Pakistani establishment, headed by the newly elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, washed its hands of the attack. In response, Indian opposition leaders demanded that talks between the two countries’ prime ministers — to be held in New York City — be called off.

At an international conference in Tehran, former Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar maintained that foreign interference would lead to “serious con- sequences for the region, [ for the] Muslim Ummah and, in fact, for the entire world.” Pakistani Advisor to the Prime Minister, Sartaj Aziz, addressed Parliament with a similar warning: “Principles of international law and the U.N. Charter [advise us] to respect the territorial integrity of Syria.” Similarly, Indian Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid has also affirmed the U.N. Charter, noting that India will not “support any action that is not endorsed by the U.N.”

Of course, there are other significant factors at play here — the safety of the eight million or so Indian and Pakistani Gulf workers and the two countries’ sizeable Muslim populations have contributed to the unlikely convergence of interests. Additionally, the vulnerable Indian rupee has been hit hard by the rising price of crude oil to more than $115 per barrel because of impending fears of a Syrian attack.

Further alienating itself from the U.S., India entered into a partnership with Iran for oil, intending to relieve some of the massive stress on its imports bill. Pakistan, not wanting to be left behind, has been working extensively with Iran and China to develop a gas pipeline that will connect all three countries, leaving the U.S. seething in frustration. Having both opposed themselves to the U.S.- led strike out of necessity, the two countries risk having their resources being cut off in one way or another.

Other South Asian nations have also united in opposition to the strike; Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal have all advocated for a non-violent resolution to the Syrian conflict. Their economic concerns also arise from their dependence on Middle Eastern oil sources. This unlikely South Asian union should impress the strike’s ramifications on Washington, but likely won’t. Given this state of affairs, Western media would do well to shift their coverage further east.