Pakistan’s recent recommendation that former U.S. President Donald Trump be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his supposed role in de-escalating tensions between India and Pakistan is not only premature but also deeply problematic. While Islamabad may credit Trump for his statements during the 2019 Pulwama-Balakot crisis, there is no concrete evidence that he played a decisive role in averting war. Moreover, Trump’s foreign policy record—marked by unconditional support for Israel’s brutal oppression of Palestinians and reckless aggression against Iran—makes him an unsuitable candidate for such a prestigious honor.
Pakistan’s Foreign Minister has argued that Trump’s “mediation” helped prevent further escalation between the two nuclear-armed neighbors after the Balakot airstrikes. However, no credible reports or official records confirm that Trump actively intervened to defuse tensions. India has consistently rejected third-party mediation in its disputes with Pakistan, making such claims dubious. Even if Trump made statements urging restraint, attributing the de-escalation solely to him ignores the behind-the-scenes diplomacy and regional stakeholders’ efforts. The Nobel Committee requires demonstrable achievements for the Peace Prize—vague assertions do not suffice.
More disturbingly, Trump’s tenure saw unprecedented U.S. support for Israel’s violent policies against Palestinians. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, emboldening further illegal settlements and annexations. His so-called “Peace Plan” was a blatant endorsement of apartheid, denying Palestinians their basic rights. Under his watch, Israel enjoyed unchecked aggression, including the 2018 Gaza protests massacre, where over 200 unarmed civilians were killed.
Even now, as Gaza endures relentless bombardment and starvation under Netanyahu’s far-right government, Trump’s rhetoric continues to justify Israel’s brutality. His recent statements praising Israel’s assault as “a very good job” further disqualify him from any peace accolade. The Nobel Peace Prize cannot be awarded to someone who cheers on the slaughter of civilians.
Trump’s reckless policies also escalated tensions with Iran. His withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani brought the region to the brink of war. Recently, Israel’s attack on Iran’s consulate in Damascus—an act that was undoubtedly greenlit by Washington. Trump’s maximalist approach to Iran has only fueled instability, making the Middle East more volatile. US attack on Iranian nuclear sites on June 23, 2025 is yet another violation of the international law committed by the super power spearheaded by Donald Trump.
The Nobel Peace Prize is not a political tool to curry favor with powerful nations; it must honor genuine peacemakers. Trump’s legacy is one of division, militarism, and disregard for human rights. Pakistan’s recommendation, whether driven by diplomatic expediency or misplaced gratitude, lacks merit. Until Trump demonstrates a real commitment to peace—rather than fueling violence—such suggestions must be dismissed. The world cannot afford to cheapen the Nobel Peace Prize by rewarding warmongers.
OIC’s Istanbul meeting – more rhetoric, little action
The recent meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Istanbul was yet another display of hollow declarations rather than decisive action. While Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan delivered a fiery speech, condemning Israel’s atrocities in Gaza and Iran, the gathering failed to produce any concrete plan to address the crises facing the Muslim world. The OIC foreign ministers repeated the same tired statements—expressing “deep concern,” calling for “unity,” and urging “international intervention”—but offered no real solutions. If this is the best the Muslim world’s collective leadership can do, then the OIC risks becoming irrelevant in the face of escalating oppression and geopolitical turmoil.
President Erdoğan’s speech was undoubtedly powerful, as he rightly slammed Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its recent aggression against Iran. He called for Muslim unity, warning that division only serves the interests of the West. However, speeches alone do not save lives. The OIC has held multiple emergency meetings since October 7, yet Gaza remains under brutal siege, with over 45,000 Palestinians killed and millions displaced. Similarly, after Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, the OIC issued condemnations—but what next? If the organization cannot even enforce economic boycotts or coordinate military support for besieged nations, then what is its purpose?
The closed-door meeting of OIC foreign ministers was particularly disappointing. Instead of presenting a unified stance on the Iran-Israel confrontation, the bloc merely recycled generic calls for “restraint” and “dialogue.” There was no discussion of collective defense mechanisms, no proposal for joint sanctions against Israel, and no plan to counter Western pressure. Iran, a key OIC member, faces constant threats from Israel and the U.S., yet the organization did not even commit to a concrete diplomatic or economic response. If the OIC cannot stand firmly behind its own members, how can it expect to influence global politics?
Some argue that merely holding this meeting was an achievement, given the immense pressure the OIC faces from the U.S. and its allies. True, many Muslim-majority nations are economically and militarily dependent on the West, making bold moves difficult. But if dependency means perpetual inaction, then the OIC is admitting its own impotence. The Arab and Muslim world possesses vast resources—oil, strategic geography, and a population of over 1.8 billion. Yet, instead of leveraging this power, the OIC remains a platform for empty statements.
Compare this to the swift, unified Western response whenever one of their allies is threatened. When Russia invaded Ukraine, NATO and the EU mobilized billions in aid, weapons, and sanctions within days. Meanwhile, the OIC cannot even agree on a unified trade boycott of Israel, let alone meaningful intervention for Gaza.
The Istanbul meeting has proven once again that the OIC is long on rhetoric and short on action. If the Muslim world truly wants to defend Palestine, Iran, and its own sovereignty, it must move beyond declarations and adopt tangible measures:
1: Enforce economic boycotts against Israel and its supporters.
2: Establish a joint defense pact to deter further aggression.
3: Create a unified media and diplomatic front to counter Western propaganda.
4: Reduce reliance on the U.S. and Europe by strengthening intra-OIC trade and military cooperation.
Otherwise, the OIC will remain a symbolic body—loud in condemnation but silent when action is needed. The people of Gaza, Iran, and other oppressed nations deserve more than just words. They deserve a leadership that fights for them.
