Washington: Marking one year since his return to the White House, President Donald Trump presented the India-Pakistan confrontation as one of several international flashpoints he said were defused under his leadership, as he renewed criticism of global institutions and pressed his case as a deal-driven peacemaker.
Speaking at a packed White House media availability, Trump said he had helped settle eight conflicts in a short span, repeatedly returning to South Asia as an illustration of what he described as decisive intervention.
“I settled eight wars,” he said, placing India and Pakistan alongside other disputes he claimed to have helped end. New Delhi has firmly stated that there was no third-party role in ending the conflict between India and Pakistan last year.
Referring to tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad, Trump claimed the two sides were “really going at it” and suggested the situation risked spiralling out of control. “Eight planes shot down.They were going to go nuclear in my opinion,” he claimed.
Trump added that Pakistan’s prime minister had personally credited him with preventing mass casualties. “The prime minister of Pakistan was here, and he said President Trump saved 10 million people and maybe much more than that,” he said. “They’re both nuclear countries.”
Trump argued that the India-Pakistan episode underscored the stakes involved in his foreign policy approach. “When you look at India and Pakistan, that could have been 10, 15, 20 million people,” he claimed, portraying the crisis as emblematic of what he called high-risk situations requiring rapid, leader-level engagement.
The president linked those claims to broader complaints about international institutions, particularly the United Nations. “The UN should have settled every one of the wars that I settled,” Trump said, adding that he did not rely on multilateral processes. “I never even thought to go to them. I got the presidents and prime ministers together.”
Trump recently announced plans for a new “Board of Peace,” suggesting it could play a more effective role in resolving conflicts.
Asked whether the body was intended to replace the UN, he replied: “Well, it might. I mean, the UN just hasn’t been very helpful.” While acknowledging the UN’s “potential,” he said it had repeatedly failed to deliver results.
Trump confirmed that Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva had been invited to participate in the proposed initiative. “I did,” Trump said when asked if Lula had been approached, adding: “A big role. I like him.” He described the board as a mechanism built around direct negotiation rather than prolonged diplomacy.
The president also returned to his long-running grievance over the Nobel Peace Prize, arguing that his role in resolving conflicts had gone unrecognised. “I should have gotten the Nobel Prize for each war,” Trump said, while insisting personal recognition was not his motivation. “I didn’t do it for a Nobel Prize. I did it because I’m saving a lot of lives.”
Trump criticised Norway and the Nobel committee, saying he had “lost a lot of respect” for the process. He claimed leaders involved in the conflicts had submitted strong recommendations on his behalf, but that the prize remained out of reach. “They control the shots,” he said.
Throughout the event, Trump framed his peace claims as inseparable from what he described as restored American strength. He cited military power, economic leverage and the use of tariffs as tools that, in his view, forced adversaries and allies to negotiate. “We built a really powerful military,” he said, crediting that posture with enabling diplomatic breakthroughs.
He contrasted his approach with previous US administrations, accusing them of weakness and overreliance on global bodies. Trump argued that his method prioritised speed and pressure over process, claiming that was why conflicts were resolved quickly under his watch.
The president did not provide details on the timing or diplomatic channels involved in the India-Pakistan engagement he cited, but he presented it as part of a pattern of what he called rapid conflict resolution. He insisted that direct leader-to-leader engagement was more effective than multilateral mediation.
(IANS)
