Washington: Former Pentagon official and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Michael Rubin, has provided a comprehensive analysis of India’s response to Pakistani aggression following the Pahalgam terror attack and subsequent Operation Sindoor. His remarks, delivered in interviews with media houses and public commentary, underscore both the military and diplomatic dimensions of the conflict and highlight the shifting international narrative regarding Pakistan’s role in terrorism.
The conflict was triggered by a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, which resulted in the deaths of 26 civilians, predominantly tourists. India attributed the attack to groups operating from Pakistani territory, specifically Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba, and accused Pakistan of direct sponsorship of terrorism.
In retaliation, India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, 2025, conducting precision missile strikes across nine locations in Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, focusing on terrorist infrastructure. These strikes reportedly killed over 100 terrorists and were described by Indian officials as “focused, measured, and non-escalatory,” with an emphasis on avoiding civilian or Pakistani military targets.
Rubin asserts that India’s military actions were both effective and restrained, demonstrating significant operational capability and planning. He notes that Pakistan, despite its history of initiating conflicts with India, was left “shocked militarily” by the precision and impact of India’s strikes. Following India’s response, Pakistan attempted retaliatory strikes, but these were met with further Indian action, including targeting Pakistani airbases, which further eroded Pakistan’s military position.
Rubin characterises Pakistan’s subsequent push for a ceasefire as a sign of military defeat, stating that Islamabad “went running to try to achieve a ceasefire like a scared dog with its tail between its legs,” and that the Pakistani military “lost very, very badly”.
Diplomatically, Rubin emphasises that India succeeded in shifting global attention to Pakistan’s role as a state sponsor of terrorism. He highlights the international community’s growing scrutiny of Pakistan, especially after reports that Pakistani military officers attended the funerals of terrorists killed in the Indian strikes, blurring the lines between state actors and terrorist groups. Rubin argues that this has forced the world to confront the “rot” within Pakistan’s system and will increase pressure on Islamabad to address its internal support for terrorism.
Rubin has also called on the United States to move beyond designating individual terrorist groups and instead formally label Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism, arguing that targeting only the “tentacles” and not the “head” of the problem is insufficient. He praised India’s political leadership for its unified and measured response, noting that it reflected a mature and resolute defence of national interests.
Rubin acknowledges that the United States played a behind-the-scenes role in mediating between India and Pakistan, primarily to prevent escalation into a broader or potentially nuclear conflict. He notes that such diplomatic engagement is standard practice in crises involving nuclear-armed states and that both New Delhi and Islamabad used Washington as a channel for communication. However, Rubin is sceptical of claims made by the US President Donald Trump regarding the extent of American influence, suggesting that Trump’s statements should not be taken literally.
The Indian government reiterated its long-standing policy that all issues related to Jammu and Kashmir must be resolved bilaterally with Pakistan, with the primary outstanding issue being the vacation of Pakistan-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. This position was reaffirmed during the conflict, and Indian officials dismissed attempts to internationalise the dispute or involve third parties beyond crisis management.
Michael Rubin’s assessment is unequivocal: India emerged victorious both militarily and diplomatically in the 2025 conflict following Operation Sindoor. He credits India’s precise and proportionate military response, its ability to rally international opinion against Pakistan’s terrorism sponsorship, and its steadfast diplomatic posture. Rubin’s commentary also signals a potential shift in US policy debates, advocating for stronger measures against Pakistan and greater support for India in counterterrorism efforts.
Rubin views the episode as a turning point that exposed Pakistan’s vulnerabilities and internationalised its internal problems, while reinforcing India’s status as a capable and responsible power in the region.
