The anniversary of Operation Sindoor was marked last week with social media comments and press conferences by members of the government. The armed forces organized a special press interaction, chaired by those who coordinated the operation. Interestingly, there was no comment, even on social media, by members of the opposition, including the Congress. This could be because the government has exploited Sindoor to its advantage in all elections.
Both India and the US employed standoff weapons during their respective operations – India against Pakistan and the US-Israel combine against Iran, and the adversaries responded similarly. India had taken time and prepared for a counter, which Israel too had done to some extent. However, the US believed that Iran would not target its bases in neighbouring countries and hence was unprepared for what followed. Almost all its bases in the Middle East faced damages and losses which would take billions of dollars to repair. President Donald Trump has repeatedly been claiming that aircraft were downed in Operation Sindoor; the numbers increasing every time he spoke.
US losses from Iranian strikes are yet to be disclosed, though everyone is aware that they were far greater in numbers, including those claimed to have been downed by friendly fire. US media and members of the public have, unlike the Indian opposition and media, behaved far more maturely and never questioned US aircraft losses. However, despite pleas by the Pentagon, US media shared details of damages to US assets. Iran’s strategy included targeting infrastructure in neighbouring countries; an option Pakistan does not possess. Thus, it could only hit back against India, for which Indian forces were prepared. Both India and the US targeted nuclear storage facilities and command and control centres, intending to force a closure in operations.
Iran had prepared for the same, while Indian strikes shook Pakistan to the core, forcing it to seek a ceasefire. Iran played its narrative based on an unprovoked attack to which it was compelled to retaliate. Its narrative building was partially successful since Trump kept changing US objectives in his social media posts while his Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, gave contradictory statements on their politico-military objectives to the media. Pakistan’s narrative of not being responsible for Pahalgam failed; that of downing Indian aircraft, while hiding their losses, was initially successful. Their promotion of Asim Munir enhanced it further. With the passage of time the world realized that damages caused by India were far beyond what Pakistan could sustain.
Today, a year later, Pakistan struggles to justify its so-called claims of victory. Iran was aware that its survival alone would be a sign of victory over the US-Israel combine. Its ability to engage in talks indicated that two powerful nations could not force a surrender. It was benefited by the fact that it does no t b order either of the two aggressors. In Pakistan’s case it was aware that if it crossed a threshold in retaliation, India could expand the war by launching ground forces, for which it was unprepared. In such a scenario, it would be compelled to redeploy forces from its western provinces, where insurgency and freedom struggles were gaining ground.
Further, its economy could not sustain a prolonged conflict. Thus, it was comp elle d to ke ep its retaliation below India’s level of tolerance. The US’s justification for the war was based on the premise that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. The world is aware that it was Israel which pushed the US into conflict. In India’s case it was retaliation for targeting civilians in a terrorist strike, solely based on religion. No nation in the world could ask India to display restraint; Israel had recently retaliated against Hamas for a similar terrorist strike, and was backed by the US. India was justified in its response, despite Pakistan’s plea that Pahalgam was a ‘false flag’ attack, while the US continues to seek support for its war against Iran.
Indians stood with the government when it launched Operation Sindoor. The public had been demanding a military response, after the attack in Pahalgam. The government had kept the pot boiling by mentioning that the armed forces would respond at a time and place of their choosing. In the US, Tr ump and his administration are struggling to justify their attack on Iran. PM Modi gained in popularity, while Trump’s ratings dropped, making him the most unpopular President in US history. India was far more successful against Pakistan than the US has been against Iran. India never sought a ceasefire, forcing Pakistan, a nuclear power which regularly threatens nuclear retaliation, to seek peace.
On the other hand, Trump claims that he has scaled down the war ‘on the request of Pakistan.’ Simultaneously, while India has declared a pause to Sindoor; the US continues with its deployment. India refuses to open dialogue with Pakistan while Trump keeps displaying his desperation for talks with Iran. India refuses mediation, while the US is using Pakistan as a messenger. This is a clear sign of who gained and who lost. Both India and the US had their politico-military objectives and end states determined prior to the conflict. The US was forced to amend its end state as war progressed, ultimately reverting to possibly what was achieved in the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), prior to Trump walking out of it in his first term.
India stuck to its politico-military objectives throughout. It continues to hold the Indus Water Treaty in abeyance, a decision taken prior to Sindoor, while the US seeks to restore the Hormuz Strait to its pre-war condition. Operation Sindoor showcased Indian military products, demands for which have been rising across the globe. On the contrary, US military products had limited success against Iran’s retaliatory strikes. India has proved to the world that it possesses quality equipment.
India subdued a declared nuclear power, while the US with all its military might, fails to bring an emerging nuclear power to heel. This is because the Indian armed forces had visualized different levels of possible retaliation and prepared for them. India’s strategy was limited escalation, while the US employed overwhelming military power. At the end of the day, limited escalation, with select objectives, was a better approach than excess military power without a clear end state. When accessed in totality, India gained in global standing while the US struggles to convince its own populace and allies on the Iranian conflict being a success.
(The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army.)