Why Nobel Peace Prize to Trump wouldn't be surprising

If Churchill, Kissinger and Obama could, why can't Trump? The US President seems to be the right candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize: An 'unpredictable, contradictory' person for the 'unpredictable, contradictory' award read more
Donald Trump has been officially nominated by Pakistan for the Nobel Peace Prize. Many people have mocked Islamabad for the choice. (A large number of Pakistanis themselves are up in arms against the decision, especially in the wake of the US joining the Israel-Iran war.) Trump has not been spared either. But the US President is convinced about his eligibility for the top honours. He, in fact, thinks he is overqualified for the award. 'I should have gotten it four or five times,' he says as he explains: 'They should give me the Nobel Prize for Rwanda, and if you look at Congo, or you could say Serbia, Kosovo, you could say a lot of them. I mean, the big one is India and Pakistan.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Of all people Pakistan Field Marshal Asim Munir—the man who actually nominated Trump for the Nobel—must be a satisfied man today. After all, the man he thought would be Pakistan's biggest nightmare has turned out to be its guardian angel. And for this, all he had to come up with was a profitable business proposition for the Trump family, howsoever dubious it might be. Field Marshal Munir's sycophantic approach—which the Pakistani generals have perfected over the last seven decades—too must have helped break the ice, but it would be a simplistic assessment despite Trump's narcissistic tendencies. Iran seems to hold the key to the sudden US-Pakistan bonhomie. Maybe the Pakistanis have sacrificed the cause of ummah and decided to secretly support the US for American dollars—just like the good, old days in the 1980s.
The outright delivery of such promises may be tough for a normal nation, but not Pakistan. For, while every country in the world has an army, Field Marshal Munir's army has a country in Pakistan. This gave him enough elbow room to deliver a commercial proposition that Trump just couldn't refuse. The American elites, in fact, have always loved this Pakistani attribute. Trump is no exception.
Coming back to the Nobel Peace Prize for Trump, he seems to be a perfect candidate for this. Not because he has done so much, but because over the decades this award has become a joke in itself. If you were wondering if this would meet protests from the Nobel committee, then you are grossly mistaken. This has been the second nature of the committee. Remember, how, a few years after World War II, Winston Churchill was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature (1953) just because the establishment of the ever-grateful Western world realised that the British war hero couldn't be given a Nobel for peace. Churchill's writings came handy there.
Churchill, however, wasn't alone. Actually, if one looks at the Nobel Prize across all verticals, he would appear to be a norm rather than an exception. In the not so distant past, the Swedish Academy didn't think twice in giving a Nobel for peace to Barack Obama (2009). His presidency wasn't a peaceful one by any stretch of imagination. If a study is to be believed, Obama carried out ten times more assassination drone strikes than the previous George W Bush regime, killing many more civilians in the process.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
If the move to award Obama was ludicrous, then the decision to give a 'peacemaker' makeover to Henry Kissinger (1973) was preposterous. For, Kissinger, in tandem with his President, Richard Nixon, presided over the death and destruction of several democracies worldwide. His role in the Bangladeshi bloodbath is a case in study. Nixon's pathological hatred for India and Indians, when combined with Kissinger's sinister Cold War calculations, caused a genocide in what was then East Pakistan. Gary J Bass, a Princeton professor, in his monumental book The Blood Telegram, reveals that Nixon and Kissinger were as much responsible for the crimes in East Pakistan, as Gen Yahya Khan was.
The list of such errors, deliberate or otherwise, is long and almost never ending—from Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat (1994), whose role in carrying out deadly strikes on civilian targets is well documented, to Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, who never pretended to be apostles of peace. In fact, in 2019, Ethiopia's controversial Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed was given the peace award. Often accused of violence and mass murder in the past, Ahmed himself admitted last year that atrocities were committed during the military offensive in the northern Tigray region.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Coming back to the field of literature, the story of novelist Graham Greene is a reminder of how ignoble the Nobel can get. A foremost novelist worldwide, Greene has failed to win the Nobel. According to one theory, he has been denied the award because he is too rich and popular. The other theory is even more disconcerting: It says that Greene could not win because he had been opposed by Artur Lundkuist, a powerful member of the Swedish Academy. Lundquist, we are told, resented Greene for having an affair with Swedish actor Anita Bjork. Anita's husband was Lundquist's friend. Maybe Lundkuist couldn't forgive Greene for getting there first after his friend's death.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez, one of the greats in the world of literature and himself a Nobel Prize for Literature winner (1982), wrote an essay, 'The Spectre of the Nobel Prize', in 1980, highlighting how this award had been a haunting experience for 'great writers'. He began the essay with the story of Jorge Luis Borges, who was 'the writer of the highest artistic merit in the Spanish language'—someone who just couldn't be excluded from the annual Nobel predictions. Yet, Borges had to go through 'the two months of anxiety to which the fates subject him every year'. The reason being, 'the final result does not depend on the candidate's intrinsic merit, nor on divine justice, but on the inscrutable will of the members of the Swedish Academy' which, Marquez found, was 'unpredictable, contradictory, and impervious to all omens'.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In this backdrop, one wonders why so much brouhaha over Trump's Nobel nomination. If anything, he seems to be the right candidate for it: An 'unpredictable, contradictory' person for the 'unpredictable, contradictory' award! And the timing will suit the American Deep State: Giving the US President the Nobel would complete the Trumpian loop: From him being a Deep State challenger to a Deep State player. Hasn't that been the ultimate objective of the members of the Swedish Academy? Remember, Churchill, Kissinger, Obama…
Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

30 minutes ago

• Time of India

Trump joins Iran war: US bombs nuke sites-But did the Ayatollah just win?

AI image for representation only. At 2:00am Tehran time, American B-2 bombers unleashed the most direct attack on Iran since the Islamic Republic was founded in 1979. Three nuclear sites-Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan-were pummeled with over 75 precision-guided munitions and Tomahawk missiles in a campaign US President Donald Trump claimed 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear infrastructure. But the impact wasn't only military. It was psychological. It was political. And it was, perhaps, paradoxical. Why it matters Trump's dramatic decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities may have delivered a powerful message to Tehran but also an unintended gift: strengthening Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his regime that was increasingly isolated, domestically unpopular, and weakened by years of internal dissent. Trump's move, aimed at crushing Iran's nuclear ambitions and demonstrating American might, also reshaped the internal dynamics of the Islamic Republic. In the face of foreign aggression, even Iranians who oppose the regime found themselves rallying behind the flag - handing Khamenei a rare nationalist boost at a time of political fragility. A group of prominent Iranian civil society figures - long-time critics of the regime - condemned the attacks, calling them 'detrimental to the human rights and democracy-seeking efforts of Iranian civil society.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Envie de tuer le temps sur l'ordinateur ? Ce jeu de l'an 2025 est un must ! Forge Of Empires Jouer Undo The big picture The US military, led by B-2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles, struck three major Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordo , Natanz, and Isfahan. These facilities were at the heart of Iran's uranium enrichment program. Trump declared 'monumental damage' to the sites, writing on Truth Social that the deepest damage occurred 'far below ground level. Bullseye!!!' Israel followed up with its own barrage, including strikes on missile sites and suspected command centers in Tehran, Kermanshah, and Bushehr. But satellite imagery and expert assessments tell a more complicated story: while Iran's nuclear infrastructure took a hit, much of its enriched uranium and centrifuges may have been relocated ahead of the attack. The road to Fordo The nuclear facility at Fordo was built deep in a mountain, out of reach of most conventional weapons-except America's 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs. Trump deployed them for the first time in combat, declaring the target a 'bullseye.' Satellite imagery showed gaping craters at the site. But what about what was inside? Iranian officials, including those from the Atomic Energy Organization, claimed their most enriched uranium had already been moved. Intelligence experts can't confirm the extent of underground damage, and some believe Iran's nuclear assets are now more dispersed-and harder to target-than ever. 'This is an incomplete strike,' Jeffrey Lewis, a weapons expert and professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, told AP. 'If this is all there is, here's what's left: the entire stockpile of 60% uranium, which was stored at Isfahan in tunnels that are untouched,' Lewis added. What they're saying 'Mr Trump, the gambler, you may start this war, but we will be the ones to end it,' declared Iranian military spokesman Ebrahim Zolfaqari. Trump doubled down on social media: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, told CNN: 'This never would have happened had they had nuclear weapons … They may now sprint toward one.' Zoom in The nationalist reflex Trump triggered is deeply rooted in Iran's modern history. Since the CIA-backed coup in 1953 that toppled a democratically elected government, suspicion of foreign interference - especially from the US - has been a defining theme in Iranian politics. Even during the recent mass protests against the clerical regime, few demonstrators called for Western intervention. That ethos flared again after the strikes. A mural in Tehran was repainted recently: the American flag, with stars replaced by skulls and stripes as falling bombs, towers over a main boulevard. The 'Death to America' slogan remains etched into public spaces. The result: a regime many Iranians despise was suddenly able to posture as the protector of the nation. Between the lines There's a profound irony in the timing. Before the attack, Tehran's regime faced growing unrest. The once-vibrant reform movement had long since faltered. Crackdowns on protests in cities and small towns had turned many Iranians against their rulers. Trust in the ballot box was gone. Ayatollah Khamenei - aging and reportedly nominating his own successors - was presiding over a brittle system. But by launching military strikes on Iranian soil, the US - and Israel - allowed the Islamic Republic to reclaim a narrative it had lost: that of resisting imperial aggression. This sentiment is not just theoretical. In practice, it has meant increased government control, tighter censorship, and the silencing of opposition voices - now easier to justify under the guise of national defense. The intrigue The attack has sparked geopolitical ripple effects far beyond Iran: Russia: Hosting Iranian officials, Moscow warned of 'Pandora's box' being opened by US aggression. The UN: Secretary-General António Guterres feared a 'rathole of retaliation.' Global oil markets: Prices surged to their highest levels since January amid fears of wider conflict. What Trump wanted vs. what he got: Trump aimed to eliminate Iran's nuclear capability, deter future threats, and perhaps even force a regime change. He invoked strength, promising peace through overwhelming power. But what he may have achieved Reigniting anti-American fervor inside Iran. Rallying Iranians around a regime they otherwise loathed. Escalating a conflict that could outlast his presidency - and potentially ensnare the US in another Middle East quagmire. Vice President JD Vance tried to reassure Americans that the US does not seek regime change. But Trump undercut that message himself, posting: 'Why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' What's next Iran's next steps could define the region's future - and Trump's legacy. The regime's military options: Missile retaliation: Already underway with strikes on Tel Aviv and threats against US bases. Strait of Hormuz closure: I ran could throttle one-fifth of the world's oil supply, sparking a global crisis. Proxy attacks: From Lebanon to Yemen, Iran's network of allies could be activated, though many have been degraded by Israel's recent offensives. But there's another, quieter possibility: a dash to the bomb. Experts fear that humiliation on the global stage may convince Iranian leaders that only a nuclear deterrent can ensure their survival. Darya Dolzikova, a nonproliferation expert at the Royal United Services Institute, warned that Iran may have 'already moved' critical nuclear materials to unknown sites. The IAEA has yet to inspect the bombed facilities to confirm the extent of the damage. The bottom line Trump's strikes may have damaged centrifuges, but they didn't decapitate the Iranian regime. Instead, they may have reinvigorated it - uniting a fractured society against a common foreign enemy and setting the stage for a prolonged and dangerous confrontation.

News18

33 minutes ago

• News18

Friend, ‘F*** Him' To Joining His War: How Trump's Equation With Netanyahu Changed Over The Years

Is US President Donald Trump a friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu? Have they always been friends? How has their equation changed over Trump's two tenures? US President Donald Trump on Saturday entered the Israel-Iran war by conducting strikes on Iran's nuclear sites. Through the start of Israel's Operation Rising Lion, Trump has been vocal about his stand against Iran and support for Israel's moves. 'Congratulations, President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history," Netanyahu said in a video on X after the US strikes on Iran. From an alliance during Trump's first term, to tension, and now a renewed but cautious strategic partnership, a look at their relationship: Trump shared a close bond with Netanyahu during his first term leading to some major moves and even praise in public. In 2017, Trump formally recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital, a major diplomatic victory for Netanyahu. The US embassy was moved there in 2018. Two years later, Trump signed an executive order recognising Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. In 2020, Trump brokered the Abraham Accords, the normalisation agreements between Israel and several Arab states — UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, with Netanyahu involved. Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) in 2018 and often called Netanyahu 'a great prime minister" and 'a friend." AFTER 2021 Netanyahu congratulated Joe Biden in 2020 before Trump conceded the election. Trump viewed this as a betrayal, reportedly saying: 'F*** him." In various interviews, Trump accused Netanyahu of being disloyal and self-serving. 2023-2025 During his second term, Trump and Netanyahu are sharing a relationship that can be called conditional cooperation. As Israel attacked Iran, Trump publicly backed Israel's right to self-defense. He also supported Netanyahu's strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. The US President has now moved U.S. strategic bombers into the region. However, despite their military cooperation, Trump has not praised Netanyahu personally. Media reports have defined their meetings 'professional, not friendly". According to the Israeli media, Netanyahu sees Trump as 'useful but unpredictable". After the Saturday strikes, Netanyahu said, ''In tonight's action against Iran's nuclear facilities, America has been truly unsurpassed. It has done what no other country on Earth could do. History will recall that President Trump acted to deny the world's most dangerous regime, the world's most dangerous weapons… President Trump and I often say: 'Peace through strength.' First comes strength, then comes peace. And tonight, President Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength." Trump spoke to Netanyahu after the US military launched strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, a senior White House official told AFP Saturday. The United States also 'gave Israel a heads-up before the strikes" as Trump joined the Israeli forces in the ongoing conflict. With Agency Inputs Get Latest Updates on Movies, Breaking News On India, World, Live Cricket Scores, And Stock Market Updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! First Published: June 23, 2025, 19:37 IST

Hindustan Times

33 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

Rutte aims to steer NATO summit around Trump turbulence

* Rutte aims to steer NATO summit around Trump turbulence Rutte tries to avoid defence spending clash at summit * Reputation as communicator, crisis manager, friendship builder * Budget deal would be major victory for Rutte in first year By Anthony Deutsch THE HAGUE, - Dutch politician Mark Rutte, appointed to navigate NATO's tricky relationship with Donald Trump, looks set to nail his first summit as secretary general after securing a draft agreement on boosting European defense spending as the U.S. president wants. Rutte has a name for negotiating political and financial minefields, and seemed unfazed last Friday when Spain at the last minute appeared to call into question its commitment to the spending goal of 5% of GDP that members are expected to accept in The Hague. But even as tension over military budgets eased, new uncertainties arose as the U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear sites loomed over Rutte's carefully stage-managed summit plans. The 58-year-old is not only a tireless communicator and an analytical problem solver but also a prodigious builder of friendships, said Ron Fresen, who covered his record 13 years as Dutch prime minister for the public broadcaster NOS. If the potentially awkward summit in Rutte's hometown of The Hague is a success, "it will largely be down to his political dexterity", said Fresen, author of the book "The Rutte Mystery". Rutte announced his interest in the top NATO job in a local Den Haag FM radio interview with Fresen in 2023. "He later told me he had made a mistake and hadn't intended to announce his candidacy," Fresen said, "to which I replied: 'You don't make mistakes like that'." RUTTE'S COALITION-BUILDING SKILLS BROUGHT TO NATO Rutte's first months at NATO have mostly been spent dealing with Trump rather than external adversaries, to the frustration of some members, said Sten Rynning, director of the Danish Institute of Advanced Study and author of "NATO: From Cold War to Ukraine, A History of the World's Most Powerful Alliance". The challenges have included Trump's threat to take Greenland from NATO ally Denmark, his suggestion that Canada become a U.S. state, his reduction in support for Ukraine and his scolding of its president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in the Oval Office. Rutte has orchestrated the summit schedule to avoid further friction between Trump and European leaders over how to deal with Russia over its full-scale invasion of Ukraine since 2022. "Most, let's say all, allies - except the United States - see Russia as a real threat and the driver of NATO defence. But not Trump. He sees it as an opportunity, and that gap has grown tremendously wide," Rynning said. Instead of dealing with Russia, China and Iran, he said the summit had been set up to be a success "in the sense that they can announce that the alliance is united, that it is in agreement on defence spending". Rutte is close to Zelenskiy and has unreservedly supported Ukraine. But he is walking a tightrope when it comes to NATO's role. Zelenskiy was not invited to the main event, avoiding a possible run-in with Trump, but only to a pre-summit dinner. Yet disagreement over Russia, set aside for now, could ultimately become Rutte's greatest challenge, Rynning added. For Rutte "this is not the time to cause it to fragment the alliance", he said, but in the long term "it is going to be his leadership challenge". RIDING BICYCLE TO WORK AS PRIME MINISTER For now, Rutte has merely sought to reassure Trump that Europe is ready to take on more responsibility for its own defence. "This summit is about the Euro-Atlantic area, making sure that we can defend ourselves against the Russians the really fast-reconstituting Russians," he told reporters on Monday. "That we are able to defend ourselves against China, which is also rapidly building up its capabilities, including 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030. So we really need to spend more, produce more, keep Ukraine strong." During four terms as prime minister, Rutte steered the Netherlands through the pandemic, forged coalition governments that bridged differences over asylum policy, mediated during the European debt crisis and took a tough stance against Putin after Russian-backed separatists killed nearly 200 Dutch nationals by shooting down an airliner over eastern Ukraine. The former Unilever manager often arrived at government offices by bike, with an apple in hand, or in his unwashed Saab, living in a modest apartment in The Hague where he kept up weekly high school teaching while heading the cabinet. Unmarried and with no children, he keeps both his private life and his emotions out of the media spotlight. Generally well-humoured, he did once lose his cool with Fresen, who had sent a camera crew to cover a possible news event that turned out to be Rutte having a drink with friends. "He called me in a rage and told me that if the footage was aired, he'd never talk to me again," Fresen said. But a few minutes later, Rutte called back to apologise. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.