'The U.S. Cannot Expect Loyalty If It Stays Silent When Terror Strikes Delhi': America Got a Reality Check
Nidhi | Jun 04, 2025, 13:32 IST
( Image credit : Company Images, Timeslife )
India has long stood by the United States, but recent terror attacks in Delhi tested that bond. When India retaliated with Operation Sindoor, Washington’s silence exposed the hypocrisy of its diplomacy. With U.S. lawmakers warning that loyalty can’t be one-sided, the world’s largest democracy is done waiting. This article explores how U.S. neutrality during India’s pain could cost it its strongest ally in Asia.
When the smoke rises from a terror blast in Delhi, silence from Washington is louder than any condemnation. At a time when the India-U.S. partnership is hailed as “the most critical alliance of the 21st century,” the bare minimum one might expect is solidarity. But Operation Sindoor — India’s precision response to a Pakistan-backed terror attack on tourists in Jammu and Kashmir — proved once again that when push comes to shove, the U.S. prefers fence-sitting over friendship.
At the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF) summit, the warning couldn’t have been clearer. Jeff M. Smith, director at the Heritage Foundation and a seasoned South Asia expert, said:
“If we want India to be a partner on U.S. core interests, we must be a partner to India on its core interests, including terrorism. Otherwise, we will be disappointed. Deservedly so.”
His words were sharp. Deliberate. And overdue. Because this isn't just a diplomatic comment—it's a mirror to a long-standing pattern of American hypocrisy in foreign policy.
In May 2025, terrorists supported by Pakistan slaughtered tourists in Pahalgam, Kashmir — a tragedy that demanded not just action from India, but support from its allies. India launched Operation Sindoor, a precise military response targeting five terror camps. It wasn’t a reckless move — it was justice.
And yet, much of Washington responded not with support—but with sterile neutrality. No mention of Pakistan. No condemnation of terror. No acknowledgment of India’s right to self-defense.
Instead, India heard words like “de-escalation”, “concern”, and “urging restraint” — as if it were not the victim, but a party to the problem.
This is not unfamiliar. The U.S. has often preached “balance” when it comes to South Asia, even if the scale is tipped by blood. 
After the September 11 attacks in 2001, the United States declared a “War on Terror.” Over 3,000 Americans were killed. The world stood in solidarity. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time. Countries sent troops. Billions were spent. Wars were waged.
But what happened next?
Washington expected — even demanded — global support. NATO allies joined unconditionally. The world was told: “You’re either with us, or against us.”
This is not a difference in policy. It's a difference in whose lives matter enough to trigger action.
At every summit, the U.S. calls India its “natural partner”, “democratic ally”, or even the “engine of the Indo-Pacific.” Senators praise Prime Minister Modi’s economic vision. Analysts hail India’s vaccine diplomacy, lunar mission, and global influence.
But when the bullets fly or bombs explode on Indian soil, those voices fall silent.
Chris Blackburn, a communication lead at the European Bangladesh Forum (EBF), summed it up bluntly:
“#OperationSindoor showed the USA hasn’t learned any lessons. India simply wants pressure on Pakistan to stop terrorism. Instead, the USA is using India’s pain as a bargaining chip for trade.” 
India is not looking for validation. It’s looking for a partner who stands beside it, not just when markets rise or policies align, but when its citizens are murdered by cross-border terror. This isn’t about warm words—it’s about action.
As Jeff Smith said,
“The U.S. cannot expect loyalty if it stays silent when terror strikes Delhi.”
And that silence has now become a message. A message that even as India is asked to align with the U.S. against China, Washington still treats it like a potential partner — not an actual one. The U.S. must ask itself: What kind of alliance is it building if it goes mute when its so-called ally is bleeding? India’s rise is not dependent on American approval anymore. It has global leverage, capital, and trust that Washington cannot take for granted.
If the U.S. continues to treat terror in Delhi as a foreign policy inconvenience rather than a moral red line, it will lose more than trust — it will lose relevance.
India’s message is clear: We do not need cheerleaders. We need teammates.
And in geopolitics, as in war — silence is not neutral. It’s a side.
At the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF) summit, the warning couldn’t have been clearer. Jeff M. Smith, director at the Heritage Foundation and a seasoned South Asia expert, said:
“If we want India to be a partner on U.S. core interests, we must be a partner to India on its core interests, including terrorism. Otherwise, we will be disappointed. Deservedly so.”
His words were sharp. Deliberate. And overdue. Because this isn't just a diplomatic comment—it's a mirror to a long-standing pattern of American hypocrisy in foreign policy.
1. Operation Sindoor: The Silence Was the Message
Operation Sindoor
( Image credit : IANS )
And yet, much of Washington responded not with support—but with sterile neutrality. No mention of Pakistan. No condemnation of terror. No acknowledgment of India’s right to self-defense.
Instead, India heard words like “de-escalation”, “concern”, and “urging restraint” — as if it were not the victim, but a party to the problem.
This is not unfamiliar. The U.S. has often preached “balance” when it comes to South Asia, even if the scale is tipped by blood.
2. When Terror Hit the U.S., The World Was Asked to Follow
9/11
( Image credit : ANI )
But what happened next?
- Iraq was invaded in 2003 on false claims of weapons of mass destruction.
- According to the Costs of War Project (Brown University), over 300,000 civilians have been killed in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria.
- Over 38 million people displaced by U.S.-led wars.
Washington expected — even demanded — global support. NATO allies joined unconditionally. The world was told: “You’re either with us, or against us.”
This is not a difference in policy. It's a difference in whose lives matter enough to trigger action.
3. Strategic Partner in Words, Strategic Ghost in Crises
Pak tried to hit Indian military targets last night, were neutralised_ Women officers tell the nation.
( Image credit : IANS )
Chris Blackburn, a communication lead at the European Bangladesh Forum (EBF), summed it up bluntly:
“#OperationSindoor showed the USA hasn’t learned any lessons. India simply wants pressure on Pakistan to stop terrorism. Instead, the USA is using India’s pain as a bargaining chip for trade.”
4. You Can’t Buy Loyalty. You Earn It.
Trump
( Image credit : ANI )
As Jeff Smith said,
“The U.S. cannot expect loyalty if it stays silent when terror strikes Delhi.”
And that silence has now become a message. A message that even as India is asked to align with the U.S. against China, Washington still treats it like a potential partner — not an actual one.
If Indian Lives Don’t Move You, Don’t Expect Indian Loyalty
If the U.S. continues to treat terror in Delhi as a foreign policy inconvenience rather than a moral red line, it will lose more than trust — it will lose relevance.
India’s message is clear: We do not need cheerleaders. We need teammates.
And in geopolitics, as in war — silence is not neutral. It’s a side.