‘We can't trade with countries firing missiles': Trump again claims credit for avoiding ‘nuclear disaster' between India and Pakistan

Economic Times

a day ago

— ANI (@ANI)
Live Events
India rejects Trump's version: "No trade talks involved"
Operation Sindoor: What forced Pakistan to the table
Strategic clarity, not outside influence
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
US President Donald Trump on Friday repeated his assertion that he prevented a war between India and Pakistan, stating that his intervention helped avoid a nuclear disaster. Speaking from the Oval Office during an event marking Elon Musk's departure from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Trump said the United States used trade pressure as leverage to halt the escalating conflict.'We stopped India and Pakistan from fighting,' Trump said. 'I believe that could have turned into a nuclear disaster, and I want to thank the leaders of India and Pakistan, and I want to thank my people. Also, we talk trade, and we say we can't trade with people who are shooting at each other and potentially using nuclear weapons. They're great leaders in those countries, and they understood and they agreed.'He further added, 'We are stopping others from fighting also, because ultimately, we can fight better than anybody. We have the greatest military in the world. We have the greatest leaders in the world.'Trump's comments have reignited debate about the extent of US influence in the recent India-Pakistan de-escalation. The claim was echoed by US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in a legal filing, where he said Trump used emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariff-related measures for national security.This is not the first time Trump has made this claim. Last week, during South African President Cyril Ramaphosa's visit, Trump had again said he 'settled' the conflict through trade diplomacy.India, however, has rejected the US president's account. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) clarified that the decision to cease hostilities came solely through military-level discussions, without any mention of trade or tariffs.'Our position on this particular issue that you mentioned has been well articulated,' said MEA Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal. 'From the time Operation Sindoor commenced on May 7 till the understanding on cessation of firing and military action on May 10, there were conversations between Indian and US leaders on the evolving military situation. The issue of trade or tariff did not come up in any of those discussions.'Jaiswal also reaffirmed that the ceasefire was reached through 'direct contact with the DGMOs of India and Pakistan.'External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, speaking to the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, also dismissed the notion of foreign intervention. When asked if the world should thank the US, Jaishankar responded: 'The cessation of firing was agreed between the military commanders of both sides through direct contact. The morning before, we effectively hit and incapacitated Pakistan's main airbases and air defence system. So, who should I thank for the cessation of hostilities? I thank the Indian military because it was the Indian military action that made Pakistan say: We are ready to stop.'India launched Operation Sindoor after a brutal terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on 22 April that killed 26 civilians. The operation began on 7 May, targeting terror camps operated by Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK).The strikes were carried out with high precision, damaging at least nine known terror launch pads. Over 100 militants were reportedly killed in the first two days. India also retaliated to cross-border aggression by striking Pakistani airbases, reportedly incapacitating their key installations.The situation escalated rapidly with both countries exchanging drone and missile strikes. But on 10 May, the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of both countries reached an understanding to halt all land, air, and sea hostilities.It was this agreement, forged between uniformed military officials on either side, that brought the active conflict to a close.While Trump has repeatedly stated that trade was used as a bargaining chip to stop the hostilities, Indian officials maintain that the decision was entirely independent and based on ground realities.India's firm rejection of Trump's narrative highlights a broader diplomatic message—that strategic autonomy remains central to Indian foreign policy. Despite close ties with the United States, decisions on military actions and ceasefires are made in New Delhi, not Washington.The divergence in narratives underscores the differing worldviews between the two countries. Where Trump portrays himself as the global peacemaker using economic might, India stresses operational control, national security priorities, and the professionalism of its armed forces.And when the dust settled, it was a conversation between generals—not presidents—that turned the tide.