Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, delivered a searing analysis of India’s handling of last month’s Pahalgam terror attack and the ensuing cross-border military flare-up. In a pointed interview with ANI, Rubin declared that India emerged victorious both diplomatically and militarily, while Pakistan was left exposed, isolated, and humiliated.
Rubin praised Operation Sindoor, India’s swift and targeted military retaliation launched on May 7, as a decisive moment that shifted global attention to Pakistan’s role in harbouring terrorism. The operation targeted multiple terror camps across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK), reportedly killing over 100 terrorists in response to the Pahalgam attack, which left 26 civilians dead.
“India won this both diplomatically and militarily,” Rubin said. “All attention is now on Pakistan’s terrorist sponsorship.”
Rubin accused Pakistan’s military and intelligence services (ISI) of being complicit in terrorism. He pointed to Pakistani military officers attending terrorist funerals as damning evidence of the blurred lines between the state and terror networks.
“The world is going to demand that Pakistan extract the rot from its own system,” he said, calling the situation a deeply entrenched security threat.
On the battlefield, Rubin didn’t mince words. He described Pakistan’s response as “disorganised and ineffective”, noting that Islamabad was quickly forced into seeking a ceasefire after its retaliatory strikes failed to produce any meaningful damage. Indian precision strikes on key Pakistani airbases—including Bholari, Nur Khan, Sargodha, and Rahim Yar Khan—highlighted India’s superior planning and execution.
“Pakistan has started every single war with India and yet convinced itself that somehow it has won,” Rubin said mockingly. “It’s going to be very difficult for Pakistan to convince itself that it won this 4-day war.”
He added that Pakistan "lost very, very badly", and no narrative spin could salvage its military credibility.
Rubin framed India’s actions as a measured and justified response to aggression, underscoring New Delhi’s right to self-defense and its responsibility to draw a "red line" against cross-border terrorism.
“This wasn't a conflict that India wanted. It was foisted upon India. Every country has the right to defend its citizens,” Rubin asserted.
While he acknowledged the role of the United States in quiet diplomacy—particularly in de-escalating Indo-Pak tensions and preventing nuclear escalation—he was dismissive of Donald Trump’s past claims of brokering peace between the two nations.
“Donald Trump likes to claim credit for everything,” Rubin said sarcastically. “If you ask Donald Trump, he single-handedly won the World Cup. He invented the Internet. He cured cancer.”
Rubin’s remarks not only reinforce the perception of India’s military superiority during this confrontation but also reflect growing global impatience with Pakistan’s dual strategy of counterterrorism rhetoric and militant sponsorship. His comments echo a wider strategic sentiment: India has fundamentally shifted the rules of engagement, and the world is watching closely.
