Washington DC (US), May 09, 2025(ANI): On being asked if it is the view of the United States along with what India said that Pakistan is supporting terrorist groups, US State Dept Spox Tammy Bruce said, "Obviously in today's world, that's a call that we have been making for decades. It is the dynamic that we've seen in the Middle East disrupting lives and clearly what happened in Kashmir is awful and we've all send our condolences. The world has rejected the nature of that kind of violence..."
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Pakistan has to be designated by the United States to be a state sponsor of terror.
00:06Pakistan started the conflict with its support for terrorism.
00:11Indians were the victim of terrorism.
00:13Asim Munir should understand that the first rule of hole digging is when you're in a hole, stop digging.
00:23We haven't designated Pakistan itself as a state sponsor of terror.
00:28We see Prime Minister Modi and others across the Indian political spectrum doing,
00:35is rallying to the realization that all Indians are under threat.
00:40Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Munir.
00:43The fact of the matter is they live together successfully in India.
00:49Michael Rubin, thank you so much for talking to me and I.
00:52How do you assess the current tension, you know, at this point that's happening between the two countries, India and Pakistan?
01:03Well, there is no moral equivalence between the two countries.
01:09Pakistan started the conflict with its support for terrorism.
01:14Indians were the victim of terrorism.
01:16While I was initially critical that Prime Minister Modi had taken so long to respond,
01:24in hindsight, it's clear that the Indian military was carefully planted
01:28and the Indian military has shown itself to be far more capable.
01:34Pakistan is, Pakistan is, Pakistan is thrashing about, looking for a way to save face.
01:45But Asim Munir should understand that the first rule of hole digging is when you're in a hole, stop digging.
01:55As we look forward, while Pakistan is trying to, perhaps, ramp up tension in the hope that external diplomats will,
02:09will, sorry, while Army Chief Asim Munir is, perhaps, ramping up tension in the hope that external actors,
02:23perhaps, perhaps the United States, perhaps China, perhaps both of them, will impose a quiet.
02:30The fact of the matter now, looking forward, there can only be one metric by which we look at the diplomatic solution to this issue.
02:46Pakistan has to be designated by the United States to be a state sponsor of terror.
02:53The fact that Pakistan, on one hand, sought plausible deniability for the actions of terrorists,
03:01but on the other hand, is rallying to their defense, should be troubling to everyone in the world,
03:08and eye-opening, as well, about the true nature of the Pakistani regime.
03:13You did talk about, you know, a U.S. must go out there and designate Pakistan.
03:22You know, Lashkar-e-Tohiba is that wing that the U.S. has done in the past.
03:28But, you know, those at the funeral prayers across Pakistan, since the first missile attack happened from the Indian side,
03:35you know, there were Lashkar-e-Tohiba terrorists coming out there and attending those prayers.
03:41So these are U.S.-designated outfits.
03:43Given U.S.'s zero-tolerance policy on terrorism, do you think it's time to pressurize Pakistan?
03:52Do you think the government must, you know, pressurize Pakistan and give them that India also has that right to defend themselves,
04:05as other nations have the right to defend themselves against terrorism?
04:09First of all, let me clarify.
04:13While the United States has previously designated individual terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Tohiba,
04:20we haven't designated Pakistan itself as a state sponsor of terror.
04:26It's time to stop designating the tentacles of the octopus and designate its head.
04:33Period.
04:33Now, beyond that, absolutely, the United States should side unequivocally with India.
04:43The job of any democratic leader is to protect its citizenry.
04:50And what we see Prime Minister Modi and others across the Indian political spectrum doing
04:57is rallying to the realization that all Indians are under threat.
05:03Before this started, Asim Munir gave away his goal.
05:10He argued that Hindus and Muslims should not be able to live together.
05:15Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Munir.
05:18The fact of the matter is they live together successfully in India.
05:23And the only reason that they no longer live successfully together in Pakistan
05:30is because Pakistan has systematically driven its minorities out of the country.
05:38Pakistan, where are your Sikhs?
05:41Pakistan, where are your Hindus?
05:45Pakistan, why are your Christians fleeing?
05:47The fact of the matter is, every time Pakistan fails inwardly in terms of corruption,
05:54in terms of economy, in terms of society,
05:59its leadership turns its guns on its own minorities
06:03in order to distract the Pakistani people from the government's own failings.
06:09That is the playbook of a failed state.
06:13Fortunately, India has a different playbook,
06:17one in which all Indians thrive,
06:20and in which they openly discuss their issues and resolve them.
06:27Right.
06:28Now, we not only just saw terrorists coming out, you know,
06:32and attending funeral prayers,
06:35but we also saw Pakistani army leadership leading funeral prayers of terrorists
06:40that were killed in the Indian missile strike.
06:43What is your position on that?
06:46How do you see all of this?
06:49Well, let me put it this way.
06:52Everyone in Pakistan must understand
06:55that if you are a terrorist,
06:58you don't cease becoming a terrorist
07:00by wearing an army uniform.
07:03The army uniform is not a way.
07:08Sorry.
07:09If you are a terrorist,
07:11you do not cease being a terrorist
07:13by wearing an army uniform.
07:16You cannot put on an army uniform
07:18and escape accountability.
07:21This is the message
07:22which not only India should send,
07:25but every other country in the civilized world.
07:29China, too, must understand
07:31that it is playing with fire.
07:33The problem with embracing Islamism
07:36is you can believe
07:41that you can set a wildfire
07:43and it will only burn your enemies.
07:47But every single time a country has tried the strategy,
07:51the winds have shifted
07:52and the primary victims
07:54have been citizens of that country themselves.
07:57This happened in Saudi Arabia.
07:59They suffered blowback.
08:01It happened in Libya.
08:03It happened in Syria.
08:05And we now see Bashar al-Assad,
08:07which once worked fisting blood
08:10with Islamic terrorists
08:12in order to export terrorism into Iraq.
08:15We saw that those same terrorists
08:17led to his downfall.
08:19Frankly, it's going to happen
08:20to Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
08:22Now, when the Pakistani military argues
08:24that they need billions of dollars
08:26because they suffer terrorism, too,
08:29what they are not saying
08:31is that they themselves
08:32are the sponsors of that terrorism.
08:35You don't give an arsonist
08:37a can of gasoline.
08:39You don't give Pakistan
08:40another billion dollars at the IMF.
08:43It's the same thing.
08:45Michael, what role does nuclear deterrence
08:50play in limiting
08:51how far this conflict might escalate?
08:55What is your opinion
08:56or your impression on that?
08:59Well, first of all,
09:00of course, the fact that
09:01both India and Pakistan
09:02are nuclear powers
09:04is a real worry.
09:07But unlike in 1999
09:08with the Cargill War,
09:10now both India and Pakistan
09:13have a doctrine
09:15for the use of nuclear weapons.
09:18They have controls.
09:19They have a procedure.
09:20So unlike in 1999,
09:22there's no longer a fear
09:24that a single man
09:26could get angry,
09:29could be mentally unstable,
09:31could be like Asim Mounir,
09:33and in order to save face,
09:35orders an attack.
09:36But behind the scenes,
09:38make no mistake,
09:38the reason why
09:40so many countries
09:41are going to be involved
09:42in trying to find a resolution
09:44is because of the fear
09:46of nuclear escalation.
09:48The danger here for India is this.
09:52If India self-deters,
09:55if they say the fear of escalation
09:57is reason not to engage,
10:00that itself would be a green light
10:02for Pakistan to continue terrorism.
10:05This is why I say
10:06that any negotiated solution
10:08any stepping back
10:10from the brink in this case
10:11has to involve
10:13Pakistan being designated
10:15a state sponsor of terror.
10:18Now, of course,
10:19Pakistani diplomats
10:20will take umbrage with this.
10:23But the answer
10:24to Pakistani diplomats
10:25should be the same answer
10:27that's given
10:27to every other country
10:29that has been designated
10:30a state sponsor of terror.
10:32For example,
10:33in the past,
10:33the government of Sudan.
10:34If you don't want
10:36to be a state sponsor
10:37of terror,
10:38stop sponsoring terrorism.
10:41It's that simple.
10:43Other countries
10:44have removed themselves
10:45from the list.
10:46Pakistan could too,
10:48but they need to engage
10:49in real reform.
10:52Right.
10:53Now,
10:53let's just look
10:55a little,
10:56you know,
10:57into the domestic politics
10:59that is playing
10:59in these two countries.
11:01How are domestic politics
11:03in both countries,
11:04India and Pakistan,
11:06influencing the leadership
11:07decisions
11:08regarding this conflict?
11:11Well, look,
11:12India is a democracy
11:13and India is acting logically.
11:16Its people demand
11:18that there be response
11:20so that this sort of terrorism
11:21doesn't happen again.
11:22And let's also
11:23make no mistake,
11:25Paghdalam wasn't
11:26the first time
11:27that India has suffered
11:29terrorism on a mass scale.
11:30Within Pakistan,
11:32the dynamic is different.
11:34Pakistan truly turned
11:36towards radical Islamism
11:39in 1971
11:41after the loss
11:43of Bangladesh
11:44because Pakistan,
11:46unlike India,
11:47has always been
11:48an artificial state.
11:51Jinnah believed
11:52that Pakistan
11:53would be
11:54an Islamic state,
11:56but in reality,
11:57he died young
11:57and Pakistan
11:59is an amalgam
12:00of different nationalities,
12:02each of which
12:03have their identities.
12:04When the Bengalis
12:06succeeded
12:07in 1971
12:09and Bangladesh
12:10was born,
12:11the lesson
12:12which the Pakistani
12:13leadership took,
12:14the lesson
12:14which the ISI took,
12:16was that
12:17if we allow people
12:19to have an ethnic identity,
12:20then our country
12:22is going to fall apart.
12:23We need to replace
12:25that identity
12:26with another identity
12:29based only on religion
12:30because that's going to be
12:32the glue that holds
12:33our country together.
12:34It really is a devil's bargain.
12:38The problem in Pakistan
12:39today, however,
12:41is that the embrace
12:42of Islam
12:43which they take,
12:45first of all,
12:46simply provides cover
12:49for corrupt governance.
12:50Second of all,
12:52many Pakistanis
12:54resent the fact
12:55that for all
12:56of the Pakistani leaders,
12:58discussion of Islam,
13:00in reality,
13:01it's a Punjabi dictatorship.
13:04And
13:04whenever the Pashtun
13:06or the Baluch
13:07or the Sindhis
13:08or anyone else
13:09complains,
13:10Pakistan's response
13:12is either
13:12to start a war
13:13or to increase
13:15radical Islamism,
13:17its never-ending cycle
13:18which is going to lead
13:20to disaster,
13:22hopefully not for the world,
13:23but certainly for Pakistan
13:25and all Pakistanis.
13:27Right.
13:29Now,
13:29how are the third parties
13:31like,
13:31you know,
13:32different countries
13:32including the United States,
13:34China,
13:35and Russia
13:36responding
13:36to this
13:39situation
13:40that's developing
13:41every minute?
13:42Well,
13:43first of all,
13:45China,
13:45I don't think,
13:46will be able
13:47to respond
13:48too productively
13:48simply because
13:50China has
13:52very,
13:52very good relations
13:53with Pakistan,
13:54but not so much
13:55with India.
13:57Russia
13:58and the United States
13:59could actually
14:01work together
14:01much more here
14:02in terms of
14:04passing messages
14:05back and forth
14:06between the governments
14:08in order to have
14:10some sort of
14:10deconfliction.
14:12But this is the parallel
14:13which I don't think
14:15should occur.
14:16There's an obvious
14:17parallel to what
14:18happened in Kashmir,
14:20to what happened
14:21in Israel
14:21on October 7,
14:232023.
14:24Now,
14:25the Israelis,
14:26before that
14:27massive attack,
14:29had a philosophy
14:31which they called
14:32mowing the grass.
14:34Because
14:34an all-out war
14:37in Gaza
14:38would be very costly,
14:40they believed
14:41that whenever
14:41they suffered
14:42a terrorist attack,
14:43they could
14:44degrade
14:45the Hamas
14:46terrorism
14:46with directed
14:48attacks on
14:49bomb-making
14:50and terror cells.
14:51And then that
14:52might buy them
14:52some months
14:53or even some years.
14:54But inevitably,
14:56the terror
14:56would regrow
14:57and they would
14:58have to mow
14:59the lawn
15:00on the grass
15:00again.
15:01After October 7,
15:03the lesson
15:04the Israelis
15:04learned was
15:05if you mow
15:06the grass,
15:07eventually you're
15:08going to suffer
15:08an attack
15:09which is too
15:10great to bear.
15:11You have to
15:12uproot the lawn.
15:14Now,
15:14India,
15:15moving forward,
15:16has a choice.
15:18They can mow
15:18the grass,
15:19at which point
15:20maybe the line
15:21of control
15:22will be quiet
15:22for six months
15:24or a year.
15:25But make no
15:26mistakes,
15:26the dynamics
15:27inside Pakistan
15:28are going to
15:29promote further
15:30terrorism.
15:31this is the
15:33time
15:33if we're
15:34going to
15:34save lives,
15:35if the United
15:35States and
15:36Russia
15:36are going to
15:37help the
15:38Indians save
15:39lives,
15:40that part
15:41of the
15:41ceasefire deal
15:42has to be
15:43no more
15:44terrorism.
15:46Not in rhetoric,
15:47but in reality.
15:49And you know
15:49what?
15:50There's no
15:50moral equivalence
15:51here.
15:52India does
15:52not engage
15:53in terrorism
15:54as a tool
15:55of state
15:55policy,
15:56nor as any
15:57other tool.
15:58For Pakistan,
15:59it's not
16:00simply the
16:01tool of
16:01state policy.
16:03Increasingly,
16:04it's become
16:05the entire
16:05character of
16:06the state.
16:08Right.
16:10Michael,
16:11could you
16:12give us
16:12an assessment
16:13of the
16:14economic
16:15consequences
16:15of this
16:16prolonged
16:17tension,
16:19you know,
16:19which could
16:20go on
16:20for probably,
16:22you know,
16:22you never
16:23know,
16:24maybe days,
16:24weeks?
16:25You know,
16:27what does
16:27it mean
16:28for both
16:28these
16:29countries?
16:31Well,
16:31first of
16:31all,
16:32I mean,
16:32if I may
16:33be a little
16:33bit critical
16:34of India,
16:35the problem
16:35with India's
16:36economy is
16:37not its
16:38conflict with
16:38Pakistan,
16:39or for that
16:39matter,
16:40its conflict
16:40with China.
16:42The problem
16:43with India's
16:44economy is
16:44something that's
16:45debated all the
16:45time in New
16:46Delhi,
16:47and that's
16:47onerous
16:48regulation and
16:49the size
16:49of the
16:49bureaucracy.
16:51So,
16:51ultimately,
16:52whatever
16:53impact,
16:55this conflict
16:56has on the
16:56Indian economy
16:57is going to
16:58be minimal.
17:00Pakistan does
17:01not have a
17:03functional economy.
17:05Pakistan is
17:06engaging in
17:06terrorism and
17:07aggression to
17:08distract the
17:09Pakistani
17:10population.
17:12Now,
17:12one of the
17:13problems Pakistan
17:14faces is
17:15similar to
17:15what Egypt
17:16faces,
17:17and that is
17:18that if
17:19ordinary
17:20Pakistanis
17:21start asking
17:22too many
17:23questions about
17:23the economy
17:24and studying
17:25it and what
17:26the true
17:26problems are,
17:27one of the
17:28major sources
17:29of weakness
17:31in the
17:31Pakistani
17:32economy is
17:33the involvement
17:34of the
17:35Pakistani
17:35military in
17:36their own
17:36economy.
17:37Just like
17:38in Egypt,
17:39one of the
17:39major problems
17:40is that the
17:42Egyptian
17:42military distorts
17:43the Egyptian
17:44economy.
17:45The Pakistani
17:46military
17:47understands that
17:49if there's
17:49ever going to
17:50be reform in
17:51the Pakistani
17:51economy,
17:52they are
17:53going to
17:53lose out,
17:54which is
17:54why they're
17:54so dead
17:55set against
17:56reform.
17:57The question
17:57is, for
17:58how long
17:59are the
17:59Pakistani
18:00people willing
18:02to be
18:02useful idiots
18:03for the
18:04Pakistani
18:05military and
18:06not recognize
18:07that the
18:08real source
18:09of their
18:10misery is
18:12the corruption
18:13of the
18:13Pakistani
18:13military and
18:15to a lesser
18:15extent, the
18:17fact that
18:17previous
18:18Pakistani
18:18governments
18:19sold out
18:20Pakistani
18:20sovereignty to
18:21China?
18:22What good
18:24has the
18:25China-Pakistan
18:26economic
18:27corridor brought
18:27to any
18:28Pakistani?
18:30Why is
18:30Pakistan more
18:31than $40
18:32billion in
18:33debt?
18:34The fact of
18:34the matter is
18:35Pakistan's own
18:36leaders get
18:38rich and
18:40they may go
18:41to Beijing
18:41and toast
18:43while the
18:44Pakistani,
18:45ordinary
18:46Pakistani
18:46civilians
18:47suffer.
18:48The ordinary
18:49Pakistani
18:50civilians have
18:51no one to
18:51blame but
18:52their leaders
18:53and they
18:54should
18:54understand
18:54that when
18:55their leaders
18:56threaten to
18:56start a war
18:57with India,
18:58it's basically
18:59because Pakistan's
19:00own leaders are
19:01so corrupt
19:02that they don't
19:03want ordinary
19:04Pakistanis knowing
19:05what they have
19:06done.
19:08Right.
19:09What, according
19:10to you, are the
19:10most concerning
19:11military capabilities
19:13that could be
19:14deployed if the
19:16situation worsens?
19:17Well, of
19:19course, ballistic
19:21missiles and
19:22drones, but so
19:23far India's
19:24defenses have
19:25shown themselves
19:26to be more
19:27than capable
19:28in this
19:28regard.
19:30What is also
19:31a concern is
19:33that other
19:34neighboring states
19:34would take
19:35advantage of
19:36this hot
19:36conflict.
19:37For example,
19:38if Pakistan
19:39realizes that
19:40it's not
19:41making inroads
19:42militarily
19:42against India,
19:43then Pakistan
19:45has an
19:46incentive to
19:46stop the
19:48violence.
19:49However, if
19:50China wants
19:50to activate
19:52Pakistan as
19:53its proxy and
19:55keep India on
19:56its toes, that
19:57itself would be
19:58very, very
19:59dangerous if
19:59China starts
20:00shipping weapons
20:01to Pakistan
20:03to continue
20:04this conflict
20:05or, conversely,
20:07starts aggression
20:08in Ladakh or
20:10in Arunchal
20:11Pradesh.
20:11Now, you've
20:14monitored this
20:15region for
20:16years.
20:17How does
20:18the current
20:19tension, you
20:21know, as
20:21compared to the
20:22previous
20:22escalation, what
20:24is your
20:25assessment on
20:26that front?
20:27Okay.
20:29The most
20:30obvious comparison
20:31would be to
20:321999.
20:33The good
20:34news is
20:36that unlike
20:36in 1999,
20:38both Pakistan
20:39and India
20:40are much
20:41more mature
20:42nuclear powers
20:43and therefore
20:45the opportunity
20:47of either
20:48country or
20:49any rogue
20:50major
20:51lieutenant
20:52colonel,
20:53colonel
20:53general to
20:54launch a
20:54nuclear weapon
20:55is far less
20:56than in
20:571999.
20:58The bad
20:59news is
21:00Pakistan's
21:01economy now
21:02is even
21:02worse than
21:03it was in
21:041999.
21:06And therefore,
21:07Pakistan has
21:08more to cover
21:08up and more
21:10incentive to
21:11try in
21:12desperation to
21:13distract the
21:14Pakistani people
21:15from the true
21:16state of the
21:17country in which
21:17they live.