‘It’s Bilateral’: Pakistan Minister’s TV Confession on Op Sindoor Rejects US Mediation

In a stunning admission that undercuts repeated claims by former US President Donald Trump, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar has publicly confirmed that India unequivocally rejected any third-party mediation during the May 2025 military conflict, insisting it was a “bilateral issue”. Dar’s revelation, made in an interview with Al Jazeera, also corroborates India’s long-standing position and exposes the diplomatic posturing that followed the intense cross-border escalation known as “Operation Sindoor”.

Dar recounted a conversation with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington on July 25, where the American official confirmed India’s firm stance. “When I met Secretary Rubio… I had asked him about the status of dialogue between India and the US over the conflict. Rubio replied that India said that it is a bilateral issue,” Dar told the news outlet. This statement serves as a direct contradiction to the narrative spun by Trump, who has frequently claimed credit for brokering a ceasefire between the two nuclear-armed rivals.

This is not the first time Dar has made a candid admission about the conflict. In a previous media interaction in Pakistan, he had also confessed that it was Islamabad, not Washington or any other country, that initiated the ceasefire request after suffering significant losses during the Indian offensive. “We did not ask the United States or any other country to arrange talks. The ceasefire request came from Pakistan,” he had stated, revealing that Pakistan had also sought help from Saudi Arabia to de-escalate tensions.

The Pakistani minister’s statements have provided fresh ammunition to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to target the opposition in India. BJP leader Amit Malviya took to X (formerly Twitter) to criticize Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, accusing him of “peddling lies” and “echoing Pakistan’s propaganda” by giving credence to Trump’s mediation claims. “Rahul Gandhi, listen carefully → Pakistan’s own Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar told Al-Jazeera that India categorically rejected any third-party ceasefire mediation,” Malviya posted.

The controversy dates back to the immediate aftermath of the ceasefire on May 10, when Trump rushed to his social media platform, Truth Social, to declare victory. “After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire. Congratulations to both countries,” he wrote. Since then, he has reiterated over forty times that his personal intervention prevented a “nuclear war,” a claim he has used to burnish his credentials as a global statesman.

However, India’s Ministry of External Affairs has consistently and firmly denied any such mediation. “It was not a US-brokered truce,” a senior Indian diplomat reiterated. “The decision to halt military actions was a sovereign one, based on direct communications between New Delhi and Islamabad. Any claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

The conflict was triggered by India’s “Operation Sindoor,” a massive counter-terrorism strike launched in the early hours of May 7 in retaliation for the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 tourists.

Indian forces targeted nine terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, reportedly killing over 100 terrorists, including relatives and aides of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) chief Masood Azhar. The operation, which involved precision strikes on key terror infrastructure and even sensitive military sites like the Nur Khan and Shorkot airbases, sparked four days of intense cross-border fighting.

Dar’s multiple admissions—first about Pakistan requesting a ceasefire and now about India’s rejection of third-party involvement—paint a clear picture: Pakistan was caught off-guard by the scale and intensity of India’s response and was compelled to seek a halt to hostilities.

For New Delhi, this public confession from a top Pakistani minister is a significant diplomatic vindication of its strategic and political handling of the crisis. It reinforces the message that while India is prepared to act decisively against terror, the path to resolution lies in bilateral engagement, free from external pressures or claims of mediation.