U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent remarks offering to mediate on the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism. Known for his frequent flip-flops and unpredictable statements, Trump’s latest intervention appears more like a calculated geopolitical maneuver than a genuine peace initiative.
The timing and tone of his comments raise eyebrows. When India launched aggressive military actions against Pakistan, the U.S. maintained a deafening silence, brushing the conflict aside as an internal matter. Yet, when Pakistan responded, and it became increasingly evident that India was facing a significant challenge on the battlefield, Trump suddenly emerged as a peacemaker. This shift indicates not a balanced concern for peace but rather a strategic alignment favoring India.
It is no secret that the U.S. has deepened its ties with India over recent years. From defense deals to economic partnerships, Washington views New Delhi as a crucial counterbalance to China in the Indo-Pacific region. Trump’s statement, therefore, seems less about resolving the long-standing Kashmir dispute and more about protecting a key ally from military embarrassment.
The selective nature of U.S. engagement in South Asia underscores the growing perception that Washington is far closer to New Delhi than to Islamabad. This dynamic was evident in the way Trump’s administration framed the narrative — downplaying Indian aggression and highlighting the need for restraint only when Pakistan asserted itself.
Despite the dubious motivations behind Trump’s offer, the broader idea of a ceasefire deserves attention. Both India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed nations with a history of conflict and mistrust. Escalations like the recent flare-up not only threaten regional stability but also global security. A ceasefire, therefore, is not merely a tactical pause but a crucial step towards de-escalation and dialogue.
For peace to be sustainable, however, it must be built on mutual respect, genuine diplomacy, and a commitment to resolving core issues like Kashmir — not on opportunistic interventions by external powers with vested interests. Any mediation that lacks neutrality or fails to consider the aspirations of the Kashmiri people is doomed to fail.
In conclusion, while Trump’s offer may have grabbed headlines, it is unlikely to change the geopolitical equation in South Asia. It serves more as a reminder of the U.S.’s strategic priorities than as a credible step toward peace. That said, both India and Pakistan must recognize the danger of further conflict and commit to upholding the ceasefire — not for the sake of global spectators, but for the future of their own people.
BY ANSAR M BHATTI/DAILY ISLAMABAD POST
