Addressing an event at the US embassy in Islamabad on June 5, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif praised US President Donald Trump for his role in helping ‘deescalate’ the situation with India—a claim New Delhi has publicly denied. He also urged Washington to facilitate a ‘comprehensive dialogue’ between the two nuclear neighbours. This request comes even as New Delhi intensifies its efforts to expose Pakistan's involvement in cross-border terrorism through Operation Sindoor.
His remarks are echoed by Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari who leads a high-powered delegation to Washington in a global diplomatic push for support for Pakistan. Bhutto credited Trump's diplomacy for the ceasefire and suggested the US mediation could foster broader negotiations. He remarked, “With the intervention of the international community—and I would like to mention the role played by President Trump and his team led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio—we managed to achieve a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. This is a welcome first step, but it’s only a first step.”
India has been piqued by calls for intervention by US Vice President J.D. Vance and Rubio, but particularly with Trump’s rhetoric. The US President has been publicly claiming credit for brokering what he called a “historic ceasefire” between India and Pakistan. Pronouncements like “I said, fellas, come on, let’s make a deal. Let’s do some trading,” have met with disappointment in India. His uninformed approach falsely equated India and Pakistan, disregarding the fact that a terrorist attack provoked New Delhi’s response.
Despite India’s outright denial, the Pakistanis have backed Trump's claim of brokering a ceasefire. Bhutto noted, “If America can help sustain this ceasefire, its role in arranging a comprehensive dialogue would benefit both nations.” It is clear that the Pakistani leadership is paying court to Trump’s tendency to claim triumph over international conflicts. Although his interventions generally indicate a broader pattern of diplomatic failures, as is evident in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.
During the India-Pakistan standoff, Pakistan’s missile strikes reportedly failed to inflict damage on India. In contrast, Indian precision strikes effectively targeted military installations across the border, including an F-16 hangar at Bholari air base. India substantiated its claims with satellite imagery, contrasting sharply with Pakistan’s alleged reliance on nuclear brinkmanship to compel a ceasefire. Incidentally, even while seeking the US intervention in South Asia, Bilawal has warned that the risk of conflict between nuclear-armed neighbours had grown, not diminished, after the recent ceasefire, continuing to play nuclear brinkmanship.
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, leading an all-party delegation to several nations including the US, clarified India’s position during discussions with Vice President Vance. Tharoor emphasised that mediation implies parity between conflicting sides, which does not exist between India—a victim of terror—and Pakistan, which he described as an ‘incubator of terrorism.’
Sharif has reiterated Pakistan’s willingness to engage in dialogue with India during meetings in Türkiye, Iran, and Azerbaijan. Nonetheless, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has maintained that any talks with Pakistan would only focus on Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, reinforcing India's stance that Operation Sindoor represents a new normal.
The broader question lingers: does the West truly grasp the significance of the terrorist attack that precipitated this crisis? After India’s operation on May 7, there was no immediate reaction. However, on May 9, following an IMF bailout for Pakistan, the most intense military confrontation between India and Pakistan erupted. Some argue Pakistan waited for the IMF's green light before escalating hostilities. The ongoing concern in India extends beyond diplomatic relations with the US and global institutions—it questions why Pakistan is not held to the same standard as other nations when it comes to terrorism.
Pakistan’s appeal to Trump's deal-making persona must be viewed with scepticism, a strategic attempt to shift focus from its role in terrorism and regain diplomatic leverage. Sharif has called on Washington to facilitate comprehensive talks between India and Pakistan on all outstanding issues, including Kashmir. Yet, India has consistently rejected third-party mediation, particularly in Kashmir, asserting that terror and talks cannot coexist. His statements appear to be part of Islamabad’s recurring attempts to internationalise the Kashmir issue, possibly as a means of deflecting attention from its alleged support of terrorism in South Asia. The events raise deeper concerns about how global powers weigh security threats and the inconsistencies in holding Pakistan accountable for its actions.
The author is a security and economic affairs analyst. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK.
