The recent flare-up of tension between India and Pakistan following the April 22 terror attack in Indian-administered Kashmir came dangerously close to igniting a full-blown military confrontation. Yet, even as the world breathed a sigh of relief over the eventual de-escalation, a political storm erupted in the diplomatic arena—triggered not by missiles, but by former U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial assertion that he “stopped the war.” This boast, made during his unprecedented White House meeting with Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, has rekindled age-old fault lines in South Asia’s geopolitics and raised uncomfortable questions about America’s balancing act in the region.
Trump’s meeting with Munir was historic for one key reason: it was the first time a U.S. president hosted a Pakistani army chief at the White House without any senior civilian representation from Islamabad. The symbolism was unmistakable. The real power center of Pakistan—the military—was being acknowledged and embraced by an American president on his own turf. In doing so, Trump ignored long-standing U.S. protocol and blurred the lines between military diplomacy and civilian engagement.
For Pakistan, this was nothing short of a diplomatic coup. The Pakistan Army remains the dominant institution in the country’s policymaking, particularly in foreign and security affairs. A meeting of this magnitude offered Islamabad not just prestige but a platform to reassert its strategic relevance in Washington—a relevance that had been diminishing in recent years due to America’s pivot toward India and growing frustrations over counterterrorism cooperation in Afghanistan.
By publicly thanking Munir for his role in preventing a war with India, Trump provided political legitimacy to Pakistan’s narrative: that it had acted responsibly and constructively to avoid conflict. Trump even floated the idea of building a long-term trade relationship with Pakistan, signaling a possible recalibration of U.S.-Pakistan relations that could go beyond short-term strategic interests.
India, however, was quick to push back against Trump’s mediation claim. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government issued a clear and categorical denial through Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, stating that the ceasefire was achieved through direct talks between Indian and Pakistani military officials—not through any U.S. mediation. Modi further emphasized that India has never accepted third-party involvement in bilateral matters, a position deeply embedded in Indian foreign policy doctrine since independence.
Trump’s comments, though likely exaggerated for political effect, are not without consequence. While he may view his statements as harmless or even helpful, they risk undermining years of careful diplomacy. U.S.-India relations have seen remarkable growth in the past two decades—marked by defense agreements, strategic dialogues, and cooperation in areas like cybersecurity and the Indo-Pacific strategy. Any suggestion that Washington could revert to Cold War-style favoritism toward Pakistan threatens to destabilize this hard-earned partnership.
Moreover, Trump’s desire to present himself as a global peacemaker—perhaps with one eye on a Nobel Peace Prize—ignores the deep-rooted complexities of South Asian conflict dynamics. Unlike the Middle East or East Asia, where great-power intervention is often invited or tolerated, India and Pakistan view third-party involvement through very different lenses. Islamabad may welcome external pressure as a means of balancing India’s regional dominance, but New Delhi sees it as an infringement on its strategic autonomy.
Trump’s claim that he convinced both sides to stand down may have elements of truth—perhaps his calls came at a critical moment. But his version of events oversimplifies what was a dangerous and diplomatically delicate situation. More importantly, it allows his own political theatrics to overshadow the gravity of nuclear risk management in South Asia.
Michael Kugelman of the Asia Pacific Foundation succinctly captured the dilemma for Washington: how much U.S.-Pakistan cooperation can India tolerate before it begins to mistrust its strategic partnership with America? The answer lies in credibility. India expects—and rightly so—that its partnership with the U.S. be based on mutual respect, non-interference, and a clear recognition of India’s core interests, particularly in relation to Pakistan and Kashmir.
The Biden administration, which has largely avoided Trump’s bombastic style, must now tread carefully. Even as Trump’s influence continues in U.S. politics, any shift in American rhetoric or actions that appear to favor Pakistan—especially in such sensitive times—could fuel mistrust and damage the goodwill built over two decades.
Peace between India and Pakistan will ultimately be a product of their own choices, not the pronouncements of a foreign leader. If the United States truly wishes to be a partner in South Asian stability, it must recognize that restraint, nuance, and quiet diplomacy are more valuable than grand declarations from podiums. The region deserves more than a fleeting headline—it deserves sustained, sober engagement rooted in mutual respect.