The international community is still dissecting the repercussions of Operation Sindoor, India's military strikes against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, which occurred on May 7, 2025. While the operation itself has receded from the immediate headlines following a ceasefire, the political fallout, especially concerning former U.S. President Donald Trump's involvement, continues to generate significant debate.
Operation Sindoor was launched in response to the deadly Pahalgam attack on April 22, 2025, where militants killed 28 civilians, mostly tourists, in Indian-administered Kashmir. India attributed the attack to The Resistance Front (TRF), allegedly a proxy of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-backed militant organization. The strikes targeted nine locations linked to anti-India terrorist groups like LeT, JeM and Hizbul Mujahideen. According to Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, the operation killed over 100 terrorists, including key figures like Abdul Rauf Azhar, a JeM leader involved in the IC-814 hijacking and the Daniel Pearl killing.
In the immediate aftermath, Trump offered to mediate between India and Pakistan, stating, "If I can do anything to help, I will be there." He described the situation as "so terrible" and expressed his desire to see both countries "stop" the escalation. However, it was Trump's subsequent pronouncements that ignited controversy. The former president claimed that the U.S. had brokered a ceasefire, leveraging trade as a deterrent. This claim was swiftly refuted by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, which clarified that trade was never discussed with American officials in relation to the ceasefire.
This isn't the first time Trump's comments on the region have stirred controversy. Following the Pahalgam attack, Trump stated he was "very close to India" and "very close to Pakistan," a sentiment that drew criticism from some Indian-Americans. Some viewed this as equating a nation victimized by terrorism with a country allegedly supporting it.
Trump's remarks have been interpreted in various ways. Some view his eagerness to claim credit for de-escalation as typical of his leadership style, while others see it as a genuine effort to promote peace in a volatile region. However, the lack of concrete evidence supporting his claims has led many to view his statements with skepticism.
The situation is further complicated by the differing narratives surrounding the ceasefire. While Trump declared a "full and immediate ceasefire" mediated by the U.S., reports suggest that the decision was a bilateral one between India and Pakistan, finalized during a call between the two countries' Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs). This discrepancy raises questions about the extent of U.S. involvement and the accuracy of Trump's claims.
Despite the controversies, the international community largely supported India's right to self-defense in the face of terrorism. Countries like the USA, UK, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE expressed their support for India's position. The European Union also issued a unified statement backing India's counter-terrorism efforts. However, some analysts suggest that Trump's comments risked undermining international solidarity by injecting unnecessary political drama into a sensitive situation.
As the dust settles on Operation Sindoor, the focus shifts towards long-term strategies for maintaining peace and stability in the region. While military actions may address immediate threats, sustainable solutions require addressing the root causes of terrorism and fostering dialogue between India and Pakistan. The role of external actors, including the U.S., remains a subject of debate, with many calling for a more nuanced and less self-aggrandizing approach to diplomacy.
