U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent remarks at a white house dinner with U.S. lawmakers, crediting his administration with preventing war between India and Pakistan in 2025 have reignited public debate about India’s skepticism to accept its losses now echoed by the U.S. president himself. For Pakistan, Trump’s acknowledgment affirms not only the gravity of the crisis but also the core truth: peace was made possible because Pakistan’s credible deterrence worked.
Trump went further, publicly endorsing Pakistan’s account of downing multiple Indian jets, including the much-hyped Rafale. His statement echoed what Islamabad has long held: credible force backed by composure is what prevented catastrophe, not transactional diplomacy or empty posturing only.
The Flashpoint: Pahalgam and Operation Sindoor
The standoff was triggered by the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, which left 26 civilians dead in Indian-administered Kashmir. Without waiting for an investigation, India blamed Pakistan, naming a so called organization, known to none, expelled diplomats, suspended aspects of the Indus Waters Treaty, and imposed trade restrictions.
The tipping point came on May 7 with Operation Sindoor, a cross-border missile strike by India targeting alleged terror camps in Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab. India deployed Rafale and Su-30MKI jets armed with SCALP-EG and BrahMos missiles, touting the operation as a show of strength. But Pakistan reported civilian casualties, over 30 killed, including women and children. The message was clear from Indian aggression, this was not just a signal, it was an act of waging war on civilians.
Pakistan’s Response: Strength With Restraint
Within hours, Pakistan Air Force retaliated decisively. In a well-calibrated operation, five Indian aircraft were shot down: three Rafales, one Su-30MKI, and one MiG-29. Remarkably, Pakistan incurred no jet losses. The air defense response, likely involving J-10Cs, JF-17 Block III fighters, and PL-15 BVR missiles, was both swift and precise.
The downing of Rafale jets in particular sent a shockwave through regional defense circles. These were India’s most advanced fighters, considered game-changers. Yet, in real-world combat, they failed to outmaneuver Pakistan’s integrated air defenses. Through this, Islamabad, didn’t only gain a tactical win, it was a strategic signal of credible deterrence.
This narrative later gained indirect validation when Indian Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Anil Chauhan admitted that “yesterday’s weapons cannot win today’s wars,” referring to the mismatch exposed during Operation Sindoor. Indian Naval Attache also publicly acknowledged that India’s “political constraints” led to “jet losses,” further substantiating the impact of Pakistan’s response.
Diplomacy with Teeth: Trump’s Quiet Intervention
Even as Indian media amplified calls for escalation, Pakistan kept its tone measured. While condemning India’s actions, Islamabad left the door open for dialogue and activated key diplomatic channels in Beijing, Riyadh, Doha and Washington.
By May 9, U.S. intelligence reportedly warned of India preparing for follow-up strikes. Trump stepped in directly. Through discreet yet firm backchannel engagement, he urged both sides to pull back, something which India categorically denies. On May 10, a ceasefire was announced. Trump took public credit for averting war and notably, endorsed Pakistan’s account of the air battle, including the Rafale takedowns.
Islamabad acknowledged Trump’s role as timely and constructive. But also emphasized that it was Pakistan’s calibrated show of strength that created the space for diplomacy to work.
Deterrence First, Then Dialogue
Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar later told Parliament, “We told the world we will not hide our response, and we didn’t, Pakistan is no longer diplomatically irrelevant; we have proven our strategic and diplomatic significance.” That sentiment was echoed by the National Security Committee and reinforced by independent crash site investigations in Kashmir and Indian Punjab confirming damage to Indian military assets. Despite holding the operational advantage, Pakistan did not escalate further. Instead, it chose de-escalation from a position of strength, sending a clear message of strategic maturity.
Trade Can’t Replace Trust or Deterrence
Trump, in his post-crisis remarks, also pointed to trade as a pressure point in managing South Asian tensions. And Pakistan’s leadership has been clear: economic ties without mutual trust, and trust without credible deterrence, mean little. The 2025 crisis showed that peace cannot rest on business deals alone. It was not commerce only, but capability, restraint in strength, that stopped South Asia from descending into war.
Post-Crisis Reality: Deterrence Redefined
In the aftermath, Pakistan emerged with a more assertive and respected strategic posture. It didn’t just protect its sovereignty, it shaped the escalation ladder and dictated the pace of disengagement. Trump led external diplomacy played a role, but it was Pakistan’s credible military readiness and calm statecraft that made such diplomacy effective against and aggressor like India.
Islamabad remains open to future dialogue, but not at the cost of strategic parity or sovereignty. Trump’s involvement is acknowledged, even appreciated, but peace was not granted from Washington; it was secured in Islamabad.
Conclusion: Peace Was No Accident
The May 2025 standoff will be studied for years,not just as a close call, but as a case in modern deterrence and diplomacy. It was Trump led U.S. diplomacy and Pakistan’s calibrated downing of five Indian jets, including Rafales and its refusal to escalate further that truly preserved peace.
Trump endorsed Pakistan’s stance for a reason: the facts spoke for themselves. In the end, it was Pakistan’s credible deterrence against India, backed by principled U.S. diplomacy, not economic optics or external pressure that held the region together.
May 2025: Trump Validates Pakistan’s Calm, Not India’s Claims
U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent remarks at a white house dinner with U.S. lawmakers, crediting his administration with preventing war between India and Pakistan in 2025 have reignited public debate about India’s skepticism to accept its losses now echoed by the U.S. president himself. For Pakistan, Trump’s acknowledgment affirms not only the gravity of the crisis but also the core truth: peace was made possible because Pakistan’s credible deterrence worked.
Trump went further, publicly endorsing Pakistan’s account of downing multiple Indian jets, including the much-hyped Rafale. His statement echoed what Islamabad has long held: credible force backed by composure is what prevented catastrophe, not transactional diplomacy or empty posturing only.
The Flashpoint: Pahalgam and Operation Sindoor
The standoff was triggered by the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, which left 26 civilians dead in Indian-administered Kashmir. Without waiting for an investigation, India blamed Pakistan, naming a so called organization, known to none, expelled diplomats, suspended aspects of the Indus Waters Treaty, and imposed trade restrictions.
The tipping point came on May 7 with Operation Sindoor, a cross-border missile strike by India targeting alleged terror camps in Azad Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab. India deployed Rafale and Su-30MKI jets armed with SCALP-EG and BrahMos missiles, touting the operation as a show of strength. But Pakistan reported civilian casualties, over 30 killed, including women and children. The message was clear from Indian aggression, this was not just a signal, it was an act of waging war on civilians.
Pakistan’s Response: Strength With Restraint
Within hours, Pakistan Air Force retaliated decisively. In a well-calibrated operation, five Indian aircraft were shot down: three Rafales, one Su-30MKI, and one MiG-29. Remarkably, Pakistan incurred no jet losses. The air defense response, likely involving J-10Cs, JF-17 Block III fighters, and PL-15 BVR missiles, was both swift and precise.
The downing of Rafale jets in particular sent a shockwave through regional defense circles. These were India’s most advanced fighters, considered game-changers. Yet, in real-world combat, they failed to outmaneuver Pakistan’s integrated air defenses. Through this, Islamabad, didn’t only gain a tactical win, it was a strategic signal of credible deterrence.
This narrative later gained indirect validation when Indian Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Anil Chauhan admitted that “yesterday’s weapons cannot win today’s wars,” referring to the mismatch exposed during Operation Sindoor. Indian Naval Attache also publicly acknowledged that India’s “political constraints” led to “jet losses,” further substantiating the impact of Pakistan’s response.
Diplomacy with Teeth: Trump’s Quiet Intervention
Even as Indian media amplified calls for escalation, Pakistan kept its tone measured. While condemning India’s actions, Islamabad left the door open for dialogue and activated key diplomatic channels in Beijing, Riyadh, Doha and Washington.
By May 9, U.S. intelligence reportedly warned of India preparing for follow-up strikes. Trump stepped in directly. Through discreet yet firm backchannel engagement, he urged both sides to pull back, something which India categorically denies. On May 10, a ceasefire was announced. Trump took public credit for averting war and notably, endorsed Pakistan’s account of the air battle, including the Rafale takedowns.
Islamabad acknowledged Trump’s role as timely and constructive. But also emphasized that it was Pakistan’s calibrated show of strength that created the space for diplomacy to work.
Deterrence First, Then Dialogue
Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar later told Parliament, “We told the world we will not hide our response, and we didn’t, Pakistan is no longer diplomatically irrelevant; we have proven our strategic and diplomatic significance.” That sentiment was echoed by the National Security Committee and reinforced by independent crash site investigations in Kashmir and Indian Punjab confirming damage to Indian military assets. Despite holding the operational advantage, Pakistan did not escalate further. Instead, it chose de-escalation from a position of strength, sending a clear message of strategic maturity.
Trade Can’t Replace Trust or Deterrence
Trump, in his post-crisis remarks, also pointed to trade as a pressure point in managing South Asian tensions. And Pakistan’s leadership has been clear: economic ties without mutual trust, and trust without credible deterrence, mean little. The 2025 crisis showed that peace cannot rest on business deals alone. It was not commerce only, but capability, restraint in strength, that stopped South Asia from descending into war.
Post-Crisis Reality: Deterrence Redefined
In the aftermath, Pakistan emerged with a more assertive and respected strategic posture. It didn’t just protect its sovereignty, it shaped the escalation ladder and dictated the pace of disengagement. Trump led external diplomacy played a role, but it was Pakistan’s credible military readiness and calm statecraft that made such diplomacy effective against and aggressor like India.
Islamabad remains open to future dialogue, but not at the cost of strategic parity or sovereignty. Trump’s involvement is acknowledged, even appreciated, but peace was not granted from Washington; it was secured in Islamabad.
Conclusion: Peace Was No Accident
The May 2025 standoff will be studied for years,not just as a close call, but as a case in modern deterrence and diplomacy. It was Trump led U.S. diplomacy and Pakistan’s calibrated downing of five Indian jets, including Rafales and its refusal to escalate further that truly preserved peace.
Trump endorsed Pakistan’s stance for a reason: the facts spoke for themselves. In the end, it was Pakistan’s credible deterrence against India, backed by principled U.S. diplomacy, not economic optics or external pressure that held the region together.
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
Recent
After Sheikh Hasina’s Exit, Can India Rebuild Its Strategic Ties with Bangladesh by Pushing Dhaka Towards the Quad?
Sheikh Hasina’s resignation ended India’s golden era of ties with Bangladesh, leaving New Delhi scrambling to counter China’s growing influence. Can Quad engagement offer India a path to rebuild trust and secure the Bay of Bengal?
Between Security and Privacy: Contextualizing Amnesty’s Claims on Pakistan’s Surveillance
Amnesty International’s Shadows of Control paints a bleak picture of Pakistan’s digital surveillance. Yet by sidelining the country’s acute security challenges, dismissing existing legal safeguards, and overlooking its own credibility issues, the report offers a partial and misleading narrative. A more balanced approach requires situating surveillance within Pakistan’s counterterrorism imperatives and recognizing the global double standards at play.
The End of Liberal Internationalism? Trump’s New Realism
Donald Trump’s address to the UN General Assembly marked a sharp break from America’s seven-decade stewardship of the liberal international order. Rooted in realist principles, his speech rejected multilateralism, attacked the UN’s legitimacy, and reframed alliances as transactional bargains. From immigration and climate policy to NATO and Middle East conflicts, Trump outlined a vision of unilateral power and national sovereignty that directly challenges the institutional foundations of global governance.
Colonial Legacies of Bombay and Calcutta
Bombay and Calcutta were more than colonial capitals, they embodied imperial urban planning, economic integration, and cultural hybridity. From segregated ‘white’ and ‘black’ towns to thriving ports, industries, and nationalist thought, these cities reveal how British rule reshaped India’s urban life while leaving enduring legacies still visible today.
The Many Faces of Activism: Symbolism, Lawfare, and Separatist Politics
Mahrang Baloch is hailed as a human rights defender, yet her rhetoric, symbolism, and political positioning reveal alignment with separatist objectives. Her activism reflects the dynamics of narrative warfare, where political fronts provide legitimacy to armed insurgencies.