Beyond the Tariff Drama: Decoding the Strategic Friction in the US-India Partnership 

Former US National Security Advisor John Bolton has sharply criticized President Donald Trump’s approach to India, characterizing it as “erratic” and damaging to US credibility. Bolton specifically cited the imposition of steep tariffs on India for its trade with Russia as inappropriate, highlighting a glaring double standard where larger buyers like China and other partners like Turkey and Pakistan faced no similar measures.

He also dismissed Trump’s claims of brokering India-Pakistan peace after the Pahalgam attack, affirming India’s position that it resulted from direct military talks. Bolton advised India to adopt a long-term perspective, viewing Trump as a temporary factor, and praised New Delhi’s quiet, measured diplomatic response as the most effective strategy to avoid escalation and preserve the crucial strategic partnership beyond the current administration.

Beyond the Tariff Drama: Decoding the Strategic Friction in the US-India Partnership 

The relationship between the United States and India, often hailed as a defining partnership of the 21st century, is navigating one of its most publicly awkward phases. The recent imposition of tariffs by the Trump administration, coupled with contentious claims about mediating South Asian peace, has introduced a jarring note of dissonance. However, to dismiss this as mere political noise would be a mistake. As articulated by former National Security Advisor John Bolton, these actions are less a coherent strategy and more a reflection of “erratic behaviour” that risks damaging long-term US credibility. The real story isn’t just about tariffs; it’s a test of strategic patience, diplomatic maturity, and the resilience of a partnership built to outlast any single administration. 

The Core of the Contention: Tariffs and a Question of Fairness 

At first glance, the Trump administration’s decision to levy 25% tariffs on certain Indian goods appears to be a standard, if aggressive, trade dispute. However, as Bolton correctly identifies, the context transforms it into something far more significant and perplexing. 

The administration framed these as “reciprocal tariffs,” but their linkage to India’s energy and defence trade with Russia reveals a deeper, more controversial motive. This move is an extension of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), designed to punish Russia for its actions in Ukraine by targeting those who engage in significant transactions with its defence and intelligence sectors. 

The profound inconsistency, which Bolton highlights, is the selective application. China, a nation the US identifies as a primary strategic competitor, continues to be a vastly larger purchaser of Russian energy and weapons yet faces no similar tariffs for these transactions. Other American partners like Turkey (a NATO ally) and Pakistan have also engaged in deals with Moscow without attracting equivalent punitive measures. 

This creates a glaring double standard. For India, a burgeoning strategic partner actively engaged in countering Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific through forums like the Quad, being singled out feels not only unfair but strategically myopic. It sends a confusing message: Is the United States a reliable partner, or will its demands be applied capriciously based on the whims of a single leader? 

The Pahalgam Fallacy: Undermining Diplomatic Credibility 

Beyond trade, the other element Bolton criticised was President Trump’s repeated assertion that he brokered peace between India and Pakistan following a terror attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir. India’s Ministry of External Affairs and military officials have consistently and firmly refuted this, clarifying that any ceasefire agreements were the result of direct, behind-the-scenes talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of both nations. 

This might seem like a minor point of diplomatic pride, but its implications are serious. For the U.S. President to publicly claim credit for de-escalating a potential nuclear flashpoint undermines the agency and sophisticated diplomatic capabilities of both India and Pakistan. It reduces a complex, fragile, and critically important diplomatic process to a talking point for domestic political consumption. This behaviour, as Bolton warns, erodes global confidence in Washington’s word. If facts on matters of war and peace are so freely embellished, how can allies trust American assurances on other vital issues? 

The Bolton Doctrine: Strategic Patience Over Public Confrontation 

Perhaps the most valuable part of Bolton’s commentary was not his criticism of Trump, but his advice to India. He praised the Modi government’s response as “quiet and measured,” advocating for a strategy of diplomatic patience and back-channel engagement. 

This advice cuts to the heart of effective statecraft. A public, retaliatory response from New Delhi—such as imposing counter-tariffs on key American goods or engaging in a war of words—would only escalate the situation, creating a cycle of retaliation that could inflict lasting damage on the economic pillar of the relationship. Instead, by avoiding public confrontation, India has: 

• Prevented Unnecessary Escalation: It has kept the dispute contained, allowing professional diplomats and trade officials to work on solutions away from the media spotlight. 

• Preserved Strategic Capital: It allows the broader defence, intelligence, and geopolitical cooperation—which is far more important than the value of the tariffed goods—to continue uninterrupted. 

• Demonstrated Maturity: It positions India as a stable, predictable power, in contrast to the perceived volatility emanating from Washington. 

This approach acknowledges a fundamental truth: nations must deal with the world as it is, not as they wish it to be. For India, the current U.S. administration is a geopolitical reality, but a temporary one. 

Theatrics vs. Strategy: The Domestic Lens of Foreign Policy 

Bolton’s most scathing indictment is that Trump’s actions are “more drama than strategy.” This is crucial to understanding the current moment. The tariffs and the grandstanding over Kashmir are not likely the products of a calculated plan to pressure India into a new strategic alignment. Instead, they appear designed for a domestic audience. 

Tough-on-trade rhetoric, taking credit for foreign policy “wins,” and projecting an image of forcing allies to fall in line play well with a specific political base. The problem is that this theatrical approach to foreign policy has real-world consequences. It forces key partners like India to question the very foundation of the partnership: Is the U.S. a reliable, long-term ally, or is the relationship transactional and subject to the domestic political needs of the moment? 

This erosion of trust is perhaps the most damaging long-term effect. It creates an incentive for other nations to diversify their partnerships, hedge their bets, and be less willing to firmly align with Washington, fearing that commitments could change with the next election. 

The Long View: Navigating the Present to Secure the Future 

John Bolton’s ultimate advice is to take the long view. He reminds us that a presidential term is a maximum of eight years, while the strategic imperative of a strong U.S.-India partnership is measured in decades. The structural forces driving the two nations together remain powerful: 

• The Challenge of China: Both nations view China’s rise and assertiveness as a primary strategic concern. 

• Shared Democratic Values: Despite their challenges, both are large, pluralistic democracies with a stake in a rules-based international order. 

• Economic Synergy: The trade relationship is vast and growing, with immense potential for both countries. 

The goal for India, and for sensible voices within the U.S. establishment, is to minimize damage, maintain core cooperation, and keep the relationship on stable footing until a more predictable and strategically consistent policy can be restored in Washington. 

The current friction is a stress test. It reveals that while the strategic foundation of the partnership is strong, its day-to-day management is vulnerable to volatility. For India, the lesson is to continue its course of quiet diplomacy, invest in deeper relationships across the U.S. political spectrum (not just with the White House), and unwaveringly pursue its national interest. For the United States, the warning from one of its own most hawkish former officials is clear: credibility is a strategic asset, and it is being squandered. The world is watching, and patience, even among friends, is not infinite.