Blood, bombs and a Nobel? Pakistan chokes on Trump nomination after US bombs Iran
What began as a bold diplomatic gesture, Pakistan recommending former US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, has quickly turned into a political embarrassment. The move, announced Friday and formalised through a letter signed by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, cited Trump's self-proclaimed efforts in preventing escalation during the recent India-Pakistan standoff.
But within hours, the US bombed three of Iran's key nuclear facilities- Fordo, Isfahan, and Natanz- in a joint operation with Israel. That single event has flipped the narrative and ignited widespread condemnation inside Pakistan.
'Afghan blood is on his hands'
Critics point not just to Trump's recent actions but to his broader legacy of war and destabilization.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder
War Thunder
Play Now
Undo
'How can a man with the blood of Afghans and Palestinians on his hands claim to be a peacemaker?' asked
Maulana Fazlur Rehman
, leader of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI-F), at a party event in Murree. He demanded the government withdraw Trump's nomination immediately.
Fazl slammed Trump's history of supporting Israeli military operations across Palestine, Syria, Lebanon—and now Iran. 'Trump's claim of peace has proven to be false,' he said, adding that the nomination appeared to be driven by Pakistani leaders' enthusiasm over Trump's lunch meeting with Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Asim Munir.
Live Events
Political outrage mounts
Voices from across Pakistan's political spectrum have joined the backlash. Former senator Mushahid Hussain said on X: 'Since Trump is no longer a potential peacemaker, but a leader who has willfully unleashed an illegal war, Pakistan government must now review, rescind and revoke his Nobel nomination!'
He further accused Trump of being manipulated by 'Netanyahu and the Israeli war lobby,' and warned that the former US president had committed the 'biggest blunder of his presidency.'
'National embarrassment'
Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) was among the first to formally condemn the US strikes, labeling them 'unprovoked' and expressing 'total support' for Iran's sovereignty.
Raoof Hasan, head of PTI's political think-tank, called the Trump nomination a 'cause of unmitigated shame and embarrassment' and blasted the government for what he described as a misstep that undermines national legitimacy.
Diplomats and Activists Speak Out
The backlash extended beyond politicians. Former ambassador Maleeha Lodhi termed the decision 'unfortunate,' saying it failed to reflect public sentiment. Veteran politician Afrasiab Khattak described it as 'sycophancy,' unfit for responsible diplomacy.
Jamaat-i-Islami chief Naeemur Rehman said the move 'undermines our national dignity,' while author Fatima Bhutto posed a pointed question on X:
'Will Pakistan withdraw its nomination for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize?'
A diplomatic blunder?
The backlash highlights a deeper discomfort with aligning Pakistan's foreign policy narrative with a figure whose record includes drone strikes, Middle East escalation, and backing regimes accused of war crimes.
As journalist Mariana Baabar noted, 'Today Pakistan does not look too good either,' sharing the official post announcing the nomination.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
‘World War 3 is near': After Putin, now Russia foreign minister warns about ‘complete global chaos'
In a stark warning to Western countries, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that the West's disregard for the UN Charter risks plunging the world into chaos and could lead to a third world war. Quoting President Vladimir Putin, Lavrov said that if every country interprets the UN Charter as it wishes, 'this world would not be a place of peace and order would give way to 'complete chaos which could lead to World War 3 .' Lavrov conveyed Putin's statement that Russia has no intention of isolating itself from its neighbours. 'These are our neighbours,' Putin said, emphasizing the importance of regional ties. He described any talk of shared human values and a common space stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific as 'laughable,' accusing the West of cutting off Russian energy supplies to the detriment of their own populations. Highlighting the consequences of Western actions, Putin condemned the terrorist attack on the Nord Stream pipeline, which he said has cost hundreds of billions of euros and damaged the European Union's economic and social well-being. According to Putin, the EU is maintaining aggression primarily 'to keep their population in check,' while the West has repeatedly 'shown their true face.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder War Thunder Play Now Undo Former Russian president on US's Iran strikes In a related development, former Russian President and current Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council Dmitry Medvedev claimed that several countries are now prepared to supply Iran with nuclear warheads following recent American airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. In a series of posts on X, Medvedev criticized the US strikes on sites in Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow, arguing that they failed to achieve their objectives and instead strengthened Iran's resolve. Live Events 'What have the Americans accomplished with their night-time strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran?' Medvedev asked. He asserted that 'the critical infrastructure of the nuclear fuel cycle appears to have been unaffected or sustained only minor damage,' and that 'enrichment of nuclear material—and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons—will continue.' Medvedev further warned, 'A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads,' although he did not specify which countries. He described the strikes as an unintended consequence that politically strengthened Iran's regime, stating, 'The people are rallying around the country's spiritual leadership, including those who were previously indifferent or opposed to it.' Trump's Noble peace prize aspirations He also mocked former US President Donald Trump , saying, 'Trump, once hailed as 'president of peace,' has now pushed the US into another war,' and sarcastically remarked on the possibility of Trump receiving a Nobel Peace Prize . Medvedev warned that the US is 'entangled in a new conflict, with prospects of a ground operation looming on the horizon,' while regional instability grows. 'Israel is under attack, explosions are rocking the country, and people are panicking,' he wrote. Iranian FM to meet Vladimir Putin Following the strikes, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced plans to travel to Moscow for talks with President Putin. 'I'm going to Moscow this afternoon,' Araghchi told Russian media, adding he would hold 'serious consultations with the Russian president tomorrow morning.' He emphasized the close strategic partnership between Iran and Russia, saying, 'We always consult with each other and coordinate our positions.' The visit follows a phone call between Araghchi and Lavrov, during which Lavrov condemned Israel's use of force and reiterated Russia's willingness to help de-escalate the conflict. The Russian Foreign Ministry stated that Moscow remains prepared to continue efforts to resolve issues around Iran's nuclear program. The US strikes, confirmed by Trump as the first direct American military action in the Iran-Israel conflict, involved six B-2 bombers dropping 12 precision-guided bombs. US officials have reportedly assured Iran that the operation was limited in scope and not intended to pursue regime change. Despite these assurances, tensions have escalated. Iran launched retaliatory missile and drone attacks on Israel, prompting further Israeli strikes on Iranian territory. Iran's Foreign Minister earlier warned that any US involvement in attacks against Iran would be 'very, very dangerous.'
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
When can US go to war? Here's what its Constitution says
In 1973, a war-weary US Congress passed the War Powers Act to rein in presidents who overstepped in Vietnam. Five decades later, President Donald Trump's unilateral strike on Iran has reignited a debate the Founders thought they had settled in 1787. On June 22, when Trump announced a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — hitting targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — he did so without notifying Congress, let alone securing its approval. The sites were hit with precision-guided missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-busters. While Tehran stopped short of a formal declaration of war, officials warned that retaliation was inevitable. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, Iran's ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, accused the United States of having 'destroyed diplomacy,' warning that the Iranian military would determine the 'timing, nature, and scale' of its retaliation, the Associated Press reported. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi immediately flew to Moscow for consultations with Russia, a sign of how fast this confrontation could escalate beyond bilateral hostilities. Back in Washington, President Trump's aides termed the strike as a limited action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Fox News to clarify the administration's position: 'This is not a war against Iran,' he said. 'It's a targeted operation to prevent nuclear escalation.' Yet just hours later, President Trump posted a message online: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The message prompted widespread speculation. Was the administration pursuing regime change in Iran? And if so, was the United States already engaged in war? Global markets reacted nervously. Oil prices surged, and analysts warned of long-term consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability. More profoundly, Trump's decision reignited a centuries-old question: who gets to declare war? The US Constitution is unequivocal: under Article I, Section 8, only Congress — not the President — holds the authority to declare war. This separation was no accident. It was a deliberate check on executive power, forged in reaction to the British monarchy, where kings could drag nations into conflict at will. The Founders sought to ensure that decisions as grave as war would require the consent of the people's representatives. The Constitution also designates the president as Commander in Chief under Article II, granting authority to direct military operations once war is authorised. The executive also retains the capacity to respond swiftly to sudden attacks. The most notable test came in 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports at the outset of the Civil War, months before Congress officially declared war on the Confederacy. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Lincoln's actions, ruling that the President has the authority to 'repel sudden attacks.' For much of US history, this balance endured. From the War of 1812 through World War II, major military engagements were accompanied by formal declarations of war from Congress. Formal declarations of war have remained rare. The United States has declared war only 11 times. (Source: But in the post-1945 world, that constitutional clarity began to blur. The first major rupture came in 1950, when President Harry Truman committed US troops to Korea without seeking congressional approval, framing the war as a 'police action' under the United Nations banner. Subsequent presidents followed suit. John F Kennedy escalated America's presence in Vietnam by sending military advisors and weapons, sidestepping a formal declaration. By 1969, President Richard Nixon was conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, entirely without the knowledge or consent of Congress. This executive overreach eventually sparked legislative backlash. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, designed to reassert its authority, overriding Nixon's veto in the process. The act required presidents to consult with Congress before engaging in hostilities and to withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorised further action. In theory, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was crafted to restrain precisely the kind of unilateral action President Trump has now taken. Passed in the aftermath of Vietnam, the law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US forces into hostilities and to withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress grants explicit authorisation. In practice, it has proven all but toothless. Every president since its passage has sidestepped or outright ignored its provisions. Trump did not inform Congress before ordering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, nor, critics argue, has he offered a convincing legal justification under the US or international law. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department, told the New York Times. The law, like many of its post-Watergate era peers, was built on trust and precedent. It had no true enforcement mechanism. And so, it has repeatedly failed to restrain the very power it was meant to check. Trump's decision fits a well-established pattern of executive overreach in foreign military engagements. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada and airstrikes on Libya without congressional approval. President George HW Bush invaded Panama in 1989, triggering legal debate over constitutional boundaries. President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 as part of the Kosovo conflict, again without seeking congressional consent. President Barack Obama launched a prolonged air campaign in Libya in 2011 and later against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, citing outdated authorisations rather than requesting new ones. Even President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authorised airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen in 2024 without congressional sanction. Each administration justified its actions as necessary and time-sensitive. But cumulatively, these precedents have normalised unilateral war-making, eroding Congress's role and the public's voice in questions of war and peace. Technological change has accelerated this shift. Drones, cyber tools, and remote strike capabilities have made it easier to conduct military operations with minimal personnel and lower political risk. A key enabler of this executive drift has been the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The resolution granted the president authority to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the attacks and those who harboured them. Originally intended to target al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the 2001 AUMF has since been used to justify military actions in at least seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. It has also been invoked against newer groups like ISIS, despite no explicit congressional authorisation for those operations. Multiple presidents have promised to revise or repeal the AUMF. None have succeeded. Its broad language remains a legal foundation for perpetual military engagement. Trump's 2025 strikes have brought these longstanding tensions to a head. Legal scholars, military experts, and members of Congress are warning that US war-making has entered a constitutional grey zone. By allowing the executive to define and initiate acts of war without oversight, Congress risks ceding one of its most fundamental constitutional powers. Trump ran for office promising to end America's entanglements abroad. Instead, with his June strike, he has intensified one of the longest-running debates in US history. At its core, the question remains unchanged since 1787: who gets to take the United States to war? Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Bangladesh probe into Hasina-era abuses warns 'impunity' remains
Sheikh Hasina (Image: ANI) DHAKA: A Bangladesh government-appointed commission investigating hundreds of disappearances by the security forces under ousted premier Sheikh Hasina on Monday warned that the same "culture of impunity" continues. The Commission of Inquiry into Enforced Disappearances is probing abuses during the rule of Hasina, whose government was accused of widespread human rights abuses. That includes the extrajudicial killing of hundreds of political opponents and the unlawful abduction and disappearance of hundreds more. The commission was established by interim leader, Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus , 84, who is facing intense political pressure as parties jostle for power ahead of elections expected early next year. Bangladesh has a long history of military coups and the army retains a powerful role. "Enforced disappearances in Bangladesh were not isolated acts of wrongdoing, but the result of a politicised institutional machinery that condoned, normalised, and often rewarded such crimes," the commission said, in a section of a report released by the interim government on Monday. "Alarmingly, this culture of impunity continues even after the regime change on August 5, 2024". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 注意：このゲーム、マジでハマるよ。今すぐプレイ！ Hero Wars ゲームをプレイ Undo The commission has verified more than 250 cases of enforced disappearances spanning the 15 years that Hasina's Awami League was in power. Commission chief Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury said earlier this month that responsibility lay with individual officers, who were "involved in conducting enforced disappearances", but not the armed forces as an institution. Earlier this month, a joint statement by rights groups -- including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch - called on the security forces to "fully cooperate with the commission by guaranteeing unfettered and ongoing access to all detention centres and providing free access to records regarding those seized or detained". Hasina, 77, remains in self-imposed exile in India, where she fled after she was ousted last year. She has defied orders to return to Dhaka to face charges amounting to crimes against humanity. Her trial in absentia continues.
