In a familiar refrain, former U.S. President Donald Trump has once again asserted that he brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, this time claiming he used the leverage of potential trade deals to achieve the cessation of hostilities. This assertion, made during a press conference at the NATO summit in The Hague, echoes similar claims he made in the past regarding the conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.

According to Trump, he told both India and Pakistan that the U.S. would not engage in any trade deals if they continued fighting. He recounted a conversation involving a Pakistani General (referring to Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir) and his good relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, stating he "got them to reason" by linking trade to peace.

However, India has consistently refuted Trump's claims of mediation. Indian officials have stated that the ceasefire, which followed a period of heightened tensions and cross-border exchanges in May, was achieved through direct talks between the two militaries, without any U.S. intervention. Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri explicitly stated that Prime Minister Modi clarified to Trump that there were no discussions about a U.S.-India trade deal or U.S. mediation during that period. Modi emphasized that India has not accepted mediation in the past and never will.

Despite India's denial, Trump's administration has stood by his version of events. U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, in a court submission, claimed that the ceasefire was "only achieved" after President Trump intervened and offered both countries trading access to the U.S. to "avert a full-scale war". This divergence in narratives has caused friction in the India-U.S. relationship.

It's worth noting that Pakistan has offered mixed signals regarding Trump's role. While some Pakistani officials have acknowledged Mr. Trump's role in bringing about the ceasefire and even suggested awarding him the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, others, like Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, have stated that Islamabad acted independently.

The context of these claims is also important. The ceasefire followed a period of intense conflict, including strikes and cross-border fire, triggered by an attack on Indian tourists in Kashmir. Fears of escalation were high, with both nations possessing nuclear weapons.

Regardless of the actual extent of U.S. involvement, the situation highlights the complex dynamics between India, Pakistan, and the United States. Pakistan, while acknowledging U.S. diplomacy, has also reaffirmed its strong relationship with China, particularly in the aftermath of the conflict. Some analysts suggest that China may be concerned about the extent of U.S. influence in the region and any promises Pakistan may have made to secure the ceasefire.

The conflicting accounts and the ongoing debate over Trump's role underscore the sensitivities surrounding India-Pakistan relations and the complexities of international diplomacy. While Trump continues to claim credit for brokering the ceasefire through trade leverage, India maintains that the agreement was reached bilaterally, and the U.S. continues to take credit for it.