White House Walks Diplomatic Tightrope After India’s Airstrikes

The United States’ response to India’s Operation Sindoor—its targeted military action against terror camps in Pakistan following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack—has been notably cautious and, at times, skeptical, despite global support for New Delhi’s right to self-defence.

While President Donald Trump acknowledged India’s security concerns and offered to mediate “if needed,” his remarks stopped short of a full endorsement. “We hope for a quick resolution,” Trump said, emphasizing de-escalation over direct support. His comments, as reported by several media platforms, appeared more focused on preventing further conflict than backing India’s counterterrorism objectives.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed a similar line, stating that Washington is “closely monitoring the situation” and remains “in contact with both Indian and Pakistani leadership.” Rubio stressed open communication and restraint, but avoided endorsing India’s actions outright—contrasting the clearer backing India received from allies like the UK, France, Israel, and the EU.

Even more revealing was the reaction from Vice President JD Vance, who bluntly remarked, “This is not America’s war.” He added, “India and Pakistan have longstanding grievances… it’s not something we can—or should—try to control.” His statement, widely seen as a distancing move, raised questions about how committed the U.S. is to confronting state-backed terrorism when it involves a key Indo-Pacific partner like India.

The U.S. State Department followed suit with a generic statement expressing concern and reiterating the importance of peace. Officials confirmed they were in talks with both nations but refrained from commenting on India’s right to retaliate against terror threats emanating from across the border.

This muted and cautious tone stands in stark contrast to the international chorus of support India received. The UK’s Foreign Minister David Lammy said India had “every reason to be outraged.” Israel’s envoy declared “terror has no sanctuary,” while the EU and all 27 member states issued a strong unified statement backing India. Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, and even Iran lent moral support, condemning terrorism and upholding India’s right to act.

But in Washington, the emphasis remained on risk aversion. Analysts suggest that despite deepening strategic ties with India under the Quad and Indo-Pacific framework, the U.S. remains hesitant to take a firm stance when regional tensions threaten to escalate into conflict.

“The messaging from the U.S. administration shows a split,” said a senior South Asia analyst. “President Trump is cautious, the State Department is noncommittal, and VP Vance sounds disengaged. It's a skeptical posture in the face of a clear terror provocation.”

As India asserts that Operation Sindoor was a limited, defensive response aimed solely at terror infrastructure—with no civilian casualties or military targets struck—the lack of strong backing from Washington stands out. For New Delhi, which expected clearer alignment from its strategic partner, the U.S. reaction may seem lukewarm at best—and skeptical at worst.

Whether this cautious stance reflects a broader shift in U.S. foreign policy or a temporary diplomatic hedge remains to be seen. But for now, India is left navigating the fallout of cross-border terrorism with only partial rhetorical support from a partner it had hoped would stand more firmly by its side.

Also Read: Operation Sindoor LIVE: Citing National Security, Govt Warns Media Against Premature Reporting