Munir's White House Welcome: Trump's Risky Bet On Pakistan's Terror-Linked General
The invitation of Pakistan's Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, to a White House lunch with U.S. President Donald Trump has ignited diplomatic tensions, particularly with India.
Trump's claim that he brokered a May 2025 ceasefire between India and Pakistan, following a four-day conflict sparked by the Pahalgam terror attack, has been debunked by New Delhi.
India asserts the ceasefire was a direct military agreement, with no U.S. involvement. Yet, Trump persists, linking his alleged mediation to trade incentives and offering to resolve the Kashmir dispute—a proposal India has long rejected. Munir's visit, amid accusations of his role in the Pahalgam massacre and Pakistan's military attending terrorist funerals in Muridke, amplifies concerns.
Trump's narrative, bolstered by Munir's presence, raises questions: Is this genuine diplomacy or a bid for influence in South Asia? Munir's provocative rhetoric before the attack, coupled with Pakistan's overt support for terrorists, underscores his destabilising influence.
The May 2025 conflict, triggered by a Pakistan-backed terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22 that killed 26, escalated with cross-border strikes and nuclear threats. On May 10, a ceasefire was announced, halting hostilities. Trump claimed he mediated a 'full and immediate ceasefire" through a 'long night of talks." India's Ministry of External Affairs, however, stated the truce was negotiated directly between the Indian and Pakistani DGMOs, with Pakistan's DGMO initiating contact at 3:35 PM on May 10 due to military pressure from India's strikes on Pakistani airbases. No US mediation occurred.
Munir's role in provoking the conflict is evident: on April 16, he delivered a speech invoking the two-nation theory, calling Kashmir Pakistan's 'jugular vein" and urging Pakistanis to highlight Hindu-Muslim differences. This rhetoric, described as a 'dog-whistle" by Indian officials, preceded the attack by six days, with terrorists targeting non-Muslims, aligning with Munir's communal framing. Former Pakistani officer Adil Raja claimed Munir ordered the attack via the ISI, a charge echoed by U.S. expert Michael Rubin, who likened Munir to a terrorist. Trump's narrative, amplified by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, ignores these facts, straining U.S.-India ties. By crediting himself, Trump emboldens Pakistan's military, which faces domestic unrest, to leverage U.S. support, risking further escalation in a fragile region.
INDIA'S STANCE: NO ROOM FOR MEDIATION
India has consistently rejected third-party mediation on Kashmir, citing the 1972 Simla Agreement's bilateral framework. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a June 2025 call with Trump, clarified the ceasefire was a military-to-military agreement, not U.S.-brokered. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri dismissed Trump's trade incentive claims, stating no such talks occurred. India's stance reflects its sensitivity to external involvement in Kashmir, an integral part of its territory. Trump's mediation offer, coupled with praise for Munir and Modi, disregards India's red lines, risking domestic backlash. The Indian opposition, led by Congress, has questioned Modi's silence on Trump's claims, fearing it may signal tacit acceptance of mediation.
India's rebuttal is a strategic message to global powers, cautioning against interference in South Asia's nuclear flashpoint. Munir's provocative speech and the Pahalgam attack's timing underscore Pakistan's intent to destabilise India, yet Trump's engagement with Munir ignores this context. By aligning with Pakistan's military, accused of state-sponsored terrorism, Trump undermines US-India relations, critical for countering China. India's warning against Pakistan's 'nuclear blackmail" and its diplomatic offensive, including suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, signal its resolve to maintain strategic autonomy, making Trump's overreach a costly miscalculation.
THE GEOPOLITICAL CONTEXT: MUNIR'S VISIT AND PAKISTAN'S GAMBIT
Munir's White House invitation, a rare honour for a military chief without civilian leaders, signals a US tilt toward Pakistan's military establishment. His visit follows his nomination of Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize for averting nuclear war, aligning with Trump's ceasefire narrative. However, it coincides with damning evidence of Pakistan's terror links. At a funeral in Muridke on May 8, 2025, for terrorists killed in India's Operation Sindoor, top Pakistani military officials, including Lt. Gen. Fayyaz Hussain Shah and Maj. Gen. Rao Imran Sartaj, attended, alongside Punjab police chief Usman Anwar. Coffins draped in Pakistani flags and wreaths laid on behalf of Munir and Punjab CM Maryam Nawaz underscored state patronage.
Lashkar-e-Taiba's Hafiz Abdul Rauf, a US-designated terrorist, led the ceremony, exposing Pakistan's military-terror nexus. Munir's ties to terrorism are further evidenced by his tenure as ISI chief during the 2019 Pulwama attack and claims by ex-Pakistani officer Adil Raja that Munir masterminded Pahalgam with ISI support. Domestic protests in Pakistan, with hashtags like #ResignAsimMunir, accuse him of orchestrating the attack to deflect from internal dissent. Pakistan's support for Iran amid tensions with Israel complicates Munir's US engagement, yet Trump's outreach may aim to counter Iran via Pakistan's nuclear leverage. This risks alienating India, a vital Indo-Pacific partner. Munir's visit, alongside a Trump family-linked crypto deal in April 2025, suggests personal motives may cloud U.S. strategy, enabling Pakistan's military to exploit Trump's overtures while deepening regional instability.
Trump's ceasefire falsehoods and Munir's White House visit have profound implications. First, they strain US-India ties, critical for countering China, as India's public rebuttal signals distrust. Second, they embolden Pakistan's military, accused of backing terrorists, as seen in Muridke's state funerals. Munir's provocation through his April 16 speech, inciting communal violence, and his ISI history link him directly to terror networks, yet Trump's engagement legitimizes him. Third, the ceasefire's fragility—evidenced by violations hours after its announcement—highlights the limits of Trump's diplomacy. Without addressing Kashmir or cross-border terrorism, the truce risks collapse, with Trump's premature claims eroding US credibility. Fourth, Trump's Kashmir mediation offer inflames Indian sentiment, potentially weakening Modi's domestic standing. Globally, Trump's actions project a US administration disconnected from South Asia's realities, undermining its neutral arbiter role.
Munir's visit, framed as a diplomatic win, instead exposes Trump's transactional approach, prioritizing optics over strategy. To mitigate risks, the U.S. must respect India's bilateral framework, engage Pakistan's civilian leadership, and avoid Kashmir rhetoric. Failure to do so could fuel escalation, empower Pakistan's military-terror nexus, and destabilise a nuclear-armed region, with Trump's overreach bearing the blame.
The author teaches journalism at St Xavier's College (autonomous), Kolkata. His handle on X is @sayantan_gh. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
view comments
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
14 minutes ago
- First Post
Why Trump's public order to reposition nuclear submarines near Russia is concerning
US President Donald Trump has ordered two nuclear submarines to 'appropriate regions' after a fiery exchange with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, raising eyebrows worldwide. While experts stress this is more of a signal than a military move, Trump's decision to publicise submarine positioning marks a rare escalation in rhetoric with Moscow read more US President Donald Trump looks on as a member of the media raises their hand, at the White House in Washington, DC, US, August 1, 2025. File Image/Reuters United States President Donald Trump on Friday revealed that he had directed two American nuclear submarines to be relocated to what he described as 'the appropriate regions.' His announcement followed a volatile exchange with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote, 'Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev … I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He added, 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.' Later in the day, Trump doubled down on his decision during an interaction with reporters, stating, 'A threat was made by a former president of Russia, and we're going to protect our people.' In an interview with Newsmax, he offered further reasoning, saying, 'We always want to be ready, and so I have sent to the region two nuclear submarines. I just want to make sure that his words are only words and nothing more than that.' The Pentagon and the US Navy, however, remained silent on the development, highlighting how rare it is for a sitting US president to publicly disclose or even allude to the positioning of nuclear-capable submarines, an issue typically kept behind numerous classified protocols. Why Medvedev's remarks triggered Trump The chain of events began days earlier, when Trump issued a blunt ultimatum to Moscow: agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine within ten days or face sweeping tariffs. The warning was the latest in Trump's already hardening stance on the conflict, which has dragged on for more than three years since Russia's invasion in 2022. Medvedev, now deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, responded with a post that bristled with mockery and menace. He wrote that Trump's series of ultimatums represented 'a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don't go down the Sleepy Joe road!' Dmitry Medvedev is a former President as well as Prime Minister of Russia. File Image/Reuters The post referenced 'Sleepy Joe,' a nickname Trump has long used to deride his predecessor Joe Biden. By comparing Trump's ultimatum to Biden's policies and warning of potential war, Medvedev appeared to deliberately provoke a reaction. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In another statement, he made reference to Russia's Cold War-era automatic nuclear retaliation capabilities — a statement that escalated the online confrontation and set off alarms in Washington. Trump, who has increasingly voiced anger toward Russia in recent months, snapped back and told Medvedev to 'watch his words,' accusing Moscow of carrying out 'disgusting' attacks on Ukraine and warning of additional sanctions. In one message, he wrote: 'This is Biden's War, not 'TRUMP's.' I'm just here to see if I can stop it!' Though Medvedev is widely seen as a political figurehead with little direct control over Russia's nuclear arsenal, his language has often been combative and is viewed by many Western officials as reflecting the Kremlin's ideological posture. Some US officials quietly downplayed the seriousness of Medvedev's comments, saying they were not treated as an imminent nuclear threat. But for Trump, the exchange became personal — and public. What submarines did Trump mean One of the biggest questions following Trump's announcement was: what exactly did he mean by 'nuclear submarines'? The United States operates 71 nuclear-powered submarines, which fall into two broad categories: fast-attack submarines and ballistic missile submarines. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The latter — the Ohio-class fleet — forms one of the three pillars of America's nuclear 'triad,' alongside land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and strategic bombers. The US has 14 Ohio-class submarines, each able to carry up to 24 Trident II D5 ballistic missiles. These missiles are capable of delivering multiple thermonuclear warheads to targets up to 4,600 miles (7,400 km) away. At any given moment, between 8 and 10 of these subs are on patrol in undisclosed locations across the globe, maintaining a constant state of readiness. Experts note that such submarines do not need to be 'moved into position' to strike potential targets, because their range covers vast swaths of the planet. Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists highlighted this point, saying: 'The subs are always there all the time and don't need to be moved into position. He grants Medvedev a response to these crazy statements.' It remains unclear whether Trump was referring to these nuclear-armed Ohio-class subs or to other nuclear-powered attack submarines, which are not armed with nuclear weapons but can carry conventional missiles and conduct surveillance, intelligence, and anti-ship operations. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Meanwhile, Russia boasts around 64 vessels in its submarine fleet of which more than half of them are reportedly nuclear-powered. This includes 11 nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines, 14 nuclear-powered attack submarines, and 16 ballistic missile submarines, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Why this is unusual by a US president While the US military regularly shifts its submarine deployments, it almost never advertises those movements. In fact, the operational secrecy of ballistic missile submarines is a foundational element of US nuclear deterrence strategy — their undetected presence is meant to assure adversaries that any nuclear strike on the United States would be met with devastating retaliation. That is what made Trump's announcement so unusual. By publicly declaring the submarine repositioning, he effectively turned a normally silent act of military deterrence into a loud political signal. Analysts say this appears to be part of Trump's well-known style of performative strength — responding visibly when provoked. Security expert explained the move by saying that the submarines were likely already where they need to be, but announcing their movement amplifies the signal to Moscow. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump's decision to go public also fits a broader pattern. In December 2016, weeks before his first inauguration, Trump had posted on Twitter that the US 'must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.' That statement triggered fears of a potential arms race, even though the number of US nuclear warheads has largely remained stable in recent decades, shrinking from Cold War highs through arms control agreements. Why Trump publicly mentioned the nuclear submarines Trump's relationship with Russia and its leadership has long been a matter of intense debate. In his first term, he frequently boasted about his rapport with President Vladimir Putin, portraying himself as a dealmaker who could manage the bilateral relationship better than his predecessors. But his recent language suggests a turn toward frustration and confrontation. In recent weeks, Trump has blasted Russia's military actions in Ukraine, describing them as 'disgusting' and accusing Putin of talking 'bullshit.' He has also threatened secondary sanctions on countries purchasing Russian energy — explicitly mentioning India — and warned that buyers of Russian oil could face economic penalties. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD At the same time, he has pursued aggressive tariff policies, declaring, 'They can take their dead economies down together.' Although Medvedev was the immediate target of his submarine remarks, many observers believe the real message was aimed at Putin. Trump has become more critical of the Kremlin while still appearing to believe he retains a personal channel with the Russian president. Experts weigh in: signalling, not immediate conflict Despite the fiery language and the alarming subject matter — nuclear weapons — most security analysts say Trump's announcement is not evidence of imminent military escalation. Evelyn Farkas, executive director of the McCain Institute and a former senior Pentagon official, argued that this move was mostly about messaging rather than preparing for a nuclear clash. 'It's really signalling. It's not the beginning of some nuclear confrontation and nobody reads it as such. And I would imagine the Russians don't either,' she told Reuters. At the same time, there are concerns about the potential consequences of such rhetoric. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, condemned the tone of the exchange, stating: 'This is irresponsible and inadvisable. No leader or deputy leader should be threatening nuclear war, let alone in a juvenile manner on social media.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Other analysts warn that Trump could be stepping into what they call a 'commitment trap,' in which strong words create an expectation that he will follow through with increasingly forceful actions if tensions escalate further. What next for Trump, Ukraine and Putin Trump's submarine declaration did not happen in isolation. It is part of a broader strategy — or at least a series of moves — to pressure Moscow into ending the war in Ukraine. On July 29, Trump had given Russia a ten-day deadline to agree to a ceasefire or face punishing tariffs. The deadline expires on August 8, and Moscow has shown no signs of complying. Putin has instead reiterated that the 'momentum of the war' favours Russia, while saying he remains open to 'peace talks,' a statement that has not been accompanied by any real concessions. Supporters may see this as a show of decisiveness and resolve, especially toward a Russia that has frequently used its own nuclear rhetoric to intimidate. Critics, however, argue that publicising such decisions undermines the quiet deterrence posture that the US has cultivated for decades — and raises unnecessary fears of a nuclear standoff. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
India.com
14 minutes ago
- India.com
'No oil reserves here, Asim Munir misled you': Baloch leader warns Trump after US announces massive oil partnership with Pakistan
'No oil reserves here, Asim Munir misled you': Baloch leader Mir Yar Baloch warning to donald Trump after US announces massive oil trade partnership with Pakistan US President Donald Trump announced a new energy deal with Pakistan on Wednesday, which includes plans to develop oil reserves in the country. But now, this deal has sparked controversy after Baloch leader Mir Yar Baloch has strongly warned Trump, saying that Pakistan has no real oil reserves and that Army Chief General Asim Munir has misled the US. Mir Yar Baloch rejected Pakistan's claim over the oil and other natural resources. He said the reserves of oil, gas, copper, lithium, uranium, and rare earth minerals are not located in Punjab or the rest of Pakistan, but in Balochistan and they rightfully belong to the Baloch people, not Islamabad. Trump-Munir Meeting in June Back in June 2025, General Asim Munir and President Trump had a high-profile lunch meeting at the White House. During that meeting, they reportedly discussed Balochistan's vast reserves of important minerals. Balochistan is known to be rich in natural resources, and now it seems the US is interested in this region. The Pakistan National Assembly also recently discussed a potential deal on strategic minerals with the US. During the discussion, one lawmaker was heard saying that General Munir went to Washington to strike a deal with Trump over Balochistan's rare minerals. The controversy is growing, as Baloch leaders are accusing Pakistan of trying to sell off resources that don't belong to it, raising serious political and ethical questions around the deal. Mir Yar Baloch accuses General Munir of misleading Trump Baloch leader Mir Yar Baloch has accused General Asim Munir and Pakistani diplomats of intentionally giving false information to US officials about the presence of oil reserves in Pakistan. He warned US President Donald Trump, saying, 'Pakistan has no oil reserves. General Munir has misled you with fake claims. The natural resources in Balochistan belong only to the Baloch people.' He made it clear that Balochistan is not for sale. Speaking firmly, he said that neither the land nor the minerals of Balochistan can be used without the clear consent of the Baloch people. He warned both the US and Pakistan against making deals that ignore the rights of the locals. In a post shared by Mir Yar Baloch, he wrote: 'Allowing Pakistan's radical army to exploit Balochistan's mineral wealth worth billions of dollars would be a serious strategic mistake. Such access would boost ISI's operational and financial power, allowing it to expand its global terror network, recruit militants, and possibly plan major attacks like 9/11 again.' He ended his message by appealing to the United States and the international community to recognize the truth and support the freedom and rightful ownership of the Baloch people over their land and natural resources.
New Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Academics warn Columbia's $200M Trump deal could set blueprint for wider assault on universities
WASHINGTON: Columbia University's $200 million agreement with US President Donald Trump's administration marks the end of a months-long showdown, but academics warn it is just the first round of a government "assault" on higher education. Academics from Columbia and beyond have expressed concerns that the deal -- which makes broad-ranging concessions and increases government oversight -- will become the blueprint for how Trump brings other universities to heel. The New York institution was the first to be targeted in Trump's war against elite universities, for what the US president claimed was its failure to tackle anti-Semitism on campus in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests. It was stripped of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding and lost its ability to apply for new research grants. Labs saw vital funding frozen, and dozens of researchers were laid off. But Columbia last week agreed to pay the government $200 million, and an additional $21 million to settle an investigation into anti-Semitism. According to Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, the lack of due process -- with the government slashing funding before carrying out a formal investigation -- left Columbia in an "untenable position." Columbia law professor David Pozen agreed, saying the "manner in which the deal was constructed has been unlawful and coercive from the start" and slamming the agreement as giving "legal form to an extortion scheme."
