By Qamar Bashir

Pakistan has announced its decision to nominate former U.S. President Donald Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, citing his critical role in brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan during their recent four-day conflict. According to Islamabad, Trump’s diplomatic intervention prevented what could have been a devastating war between two nuclear-armed nations, whose combined population nears 1.7 billion people. The risk of escalation was not merely regional—it threatened global catastrophe. A full-blown nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would have killed millions instantly, left countless more suffering from radiation poisoning, and potentially polluted vast areas of the planet with radioactive fallout.

In the eyes of Pakistani leadership, the ceasefire was not a result of bilateral understanding alone, but rather the outcome of behind-the-scenes pressure from Washington, led by Trump himself. His influence, they argue, tipped the strategic balance in Pakistan’s favor. The fact that India has not made a similar nomination, nor endorsed Pakistan’s proposal, suggests New Delhi may have been compelled by external pressure to agree to de-escalation—an arm-twisting it now hesitates to acknowledge. Pakistan, by contrast, sees Trump’s role as decisive, crediting him for giving diplomacy a chance and stabilizing one of the world’s most volatile flashpoints.

For Trump, this marks yet another moment where he seeks to define himself as a peacemaker. Since returning to office, he has claimed involvement in a range of peace efforts, including attempting to defuse tensions between Russia and Ukraine, proposing controversial solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and more recently, trying to mediate between Israel and Iran as hostilities in the Middle East escalate. In each of these cases, Trump has framed himself as a man of peace rather than war, a statesman who prefers deals over destruction.

However, the Nobel Peace Prize is governed by very specific criteria outlined in Alfred Nobel’s will. The prize is intended for those who have, in the preceding year, contributed most to fostering fraternity between nations, advancing disarmament or the abolition of standing armies, or organizing peace congresses. While Pakistan’s government is qualified to make the nomination, the question remains whether Trump’s actions align sufficiently with these core requirements.

Trump’s role in halting the India-Pakistan conflict may well qualify under the category of fostering fraternity between nations, at least in the narrow sense of preventing immediate escalation. However, critics argue that his interventions tend to be tactical rather than structural. The ceasefire, while significant, did not involve formal peace talks, demilitarization, or the establishment of long-term conflict-resolution mechanisms. It was a pause in hostilities, not a transformation of the underlying tensions. Similarly, his other diplomatic efforts have often lacked follow-through, institutions, or treaties that would make peace durable.

Still, Trump’s posture as a peacemaker has found fresh ground in the Middle East. As the war between Israel and Iran escalated in June 2025, Trump initiated a series of back-channel efforts to contain the conflict. He publicly called for calm, pressured both sides to explore negotiation, and sought Turkish mediation to open discreet dialogue with Iranian officials. Though Tehran initially refused to participate unless Israel halted its bombing campaign, Trump remained hopeful that diplomacy could still win the day. At the G7 summit, he reiterated his plea for restraint, urging both parties to “make a deal” and avoid dragging the region into a full-scale war.

Unlike many past U.S. presidents, Trump has taken a nuanced stance on NATO, pushing European allies to shoulder more financial responsibility. His reduced emphasis on U.S. military interventionism is consistent with his larger strategy of avoiding entanglements while leveraging diplomatic pressure. Whether this is pragmatism or isolationism is open to debate, but Pakistan clearly sees in Trump a leader who intervenes only when strategic interests and peace align.

Yet Trump’s foreign policy record is fraught with contradictions. While positioning himself as a man of peace in one region, he has actively emboldened militarism and expansionism in others. His unwavering support for Israel, despite the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the West Bank, has been widely condemned.

His administration’s backing of Israeli military operations—framed by many as acts of genocide against Palestinians—has undermined his peace credentials. Furthermore, his support for Israel’s continued assault on Iran and refusal to condemn aggressive preemptive strikes has placed the United States squarely on one side of an increasingly dangerous regional war.

Beyond the Middle East, Trump’s assertions to annex Canada as the 51st state, his plan to rebrand the Gulf of Mexico under American identity, his proposal to take over Greenland from Denmark, and his ambitions to militarize and control the Panama Canal and adjacent lake regions signal an aggressive geopolitical posture. These positions paint him not as a global peacemaker but as an opportunistic expansionist, eager to rewrite borders and extend American dominance through threats, deals, or force.

Despite these criticisms, Trump’s ability to stall a potential war between India and Pakistan gives him a strong talking point in the context of Nobel nominations. It adds weight to his self-characterization as a statesman who, even if unconventional, gets results. Whether the Nobel Committee shares that view is far from certain. Historically, the committee has favored leaders whose efforts culminate in formal agreements, institutional reforms, or significant steps toward disarmament—criteria that Trump has yet to meet fully.

There is, of course, a deeply political dimension to Pakistan’s nomination. By recognizing Trump in this way, Islamabad gains soft power leverage and potentially earns goodwill from one of the most powerful and polarizing leaders on the global stage. In contrast, India—smarting from what many see as a military setback—has remained diplomatically muted. Its reluctance to echo Pakistan’s praise of Trump may be born out of resentment or embarrassment. By moving first, Pakistan has repositioned itself as a diplomatic ally to the United States under Trump’s leadership, while casting India in a defensive, unresponsive role.

In conclusion, Pakistan’s nomination of Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize is both a diplomatic strategy and a symbolic gesture. It serves to highlight Trump’s influence in regional stability and underscores Pakistan’s gratitude for averting a disastrous conflict. While the nomination is procedurally sound, whether it gains traction with the Nobel Committee depends on how they interpret Trump’s peace initiatives. If short-term conflict prevention is deemed sufficient, Trump could emerge as a serious contender. If the bar remains high—demanding enduring peace through institutions, disarmament, and treaties—then his efforts may fall short. Regardless of the outcome, the move places Pakistan on Trump’s radar and subtly shifts the narrative of South Asia’s security calculus in Islamabad’s favor.

By Qamar Bashir

 Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)

 Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France

 Former MD, SRBC | Macomb, Michigan, USA

By Qamar Bashir

On June 13, 2025, the world witnessed a dangerous escalation in the Middle East when Israel launched an unprovoked and unilateral strike on Iran, using its advanced F-35 stealth aircraft to bomb high-profile military and civilian targets in Tehran. The attack claimed the lives of senior Iranian commanders, nuclear scientists, professors, and innocent civilians—including women, children, and the elderly. The justification? A vague and baseless accusation that Iran was imminently developing a nuclear weapon.

However, that claim collapsed swiftly. In a decisive response, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) clarified that the attack bore no relation to any IAEA findings. He categorically stated that Iran had not violated its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and that there was no evidence of uranium enrichment reaching weapons-grade levels or any sign of Iran building a nuclear bomb. While acknowledging transparency issues, he emphasized they were not extraordinary when compared to inspections in other countries. The IAEA ultimately declared the Israeli assault a political decision devoid of nuclear justification.

This revelation stripped away the mask. Israel’s motive was never disarmament—it was strategic domination. By dismantling Iran’s infrastructure and decapitating its command structure, Israel aims to replicate Gaza’s plight: a nation crippled, isolated, and humiliated. With unwavering backing from President Donald Trump, Israel seeks to erase Iran as a regional counterbalance once and for all.

President Trump’s role has been duplicitous. His public messaging fluctuates between boasts of “winning with Israel” and threats demanding Iran’s surrender within two weeks—or face annihilation. This erratic behavior is a textbook case of psychological warfare, meant to sow confusion and pressure Iran’s leadership into submission.

Yet no article of the UN Charter, no principle of international law, and no precedent in diplomacy legitimizes one sovereign nation threatening another with total destruction unless it complies. Trump’s threats are not merely provocative—they are imperial commands cloaked in strategic language, a stark violation of international norms.

In stark contrast, the European Union has opted for diplomacy. The UK, France, and Germany have engaged in discussions with Iran’s Foreign Minister, seeking a peaceful exit from the crisis. Iran, however, has drawn a firm red line: negotiations are off the table until Israel halts its aggression. Until then, Tehran vows to defend its sovereignty, dignity, and freedom with full force.

This divergence in response reflects a broader shift—power is no longer concentrated in Washington alone. New centers of global influence are emerging, and not all are aligned with U.S. militarism.

Russia, long a traditional ally of Iran, has opted for neutrality. Preoccupied with its prolonged war in Ukraine—a conflict sustained by NATO and U.S. support—Moscow cited the absence of any formal military pact with Iran as the reason for abstaining. This silence is significant: even Russia refuses to be dragged into a conflict ignited by Tel Aviv and fanned by Washington.

Meanwhile, China is executing a more calculated strategy. From Iraq to Libya, Syria to Afghanistan, Beijing has observed that every U.S.-led war depletes American economic, political, and military capital. The more America bleeds, the more China surges. Beijing’s neutrality is not weakness—it is strategic wisdom. Let Washington entangle itself in yet another endless war while China accelerates its rise as a global superpower.

In this unfolding geopolitical drama, China quietly emerges as the silent victor—building trade alliances, fostering diplomacy, and projecting power without firing a single shot.

In a significant yet understated development, President Trump held a closed-door meeting with Pakistan’s Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, bypassing civilian leadership. While the official statement was vague and devoid of substance, the timing speaks volumes. With the conflict expected to escalate, the U.S. may seek Pakistani cooperation—covertly or overtly—for ground operations in the region. Though deeply unpopular among Pakistanis, such decisions often lie with military and intelligence agencies, not public will. This potential alignment poses grave risks for Pakistan, as any role against Iran could invite retaliatory strikes on major Pakistani cities. In this context, it is Pakistan—not just the U.S.—that must tread with extreme caution.

Domestically both Israel and USA are faced with severe public backlash. Ironically, as Israel claims to be acting in the interest of Jewish security, many Jews around the world now feel that jews are more safe in rest of the world than in Israel. A prominent Jewish leader in the UK declared recently that he had always felt safe in Britain, but now views Israel as one of the most dangerous places on Earth for Jews.

Across American social media platforms—from X to Facebook to TikTok—citizens are loudly protesting the use of their tax dollars and military lives for what they perceive as an Israeli war, not an American one. There is no congressional consensus, no popular mandate, no NATO support, and no UN resolution. This war is unauthorized, unmandated, and unsupported.

Europe too has shown restraint. Its citizens are weary of endless wars waged under U.S. pressure and driven by Israeli regional ambitions. Governments across the continent are resisting involvement, recognizing the immense human, economic, and moral costs of yet another Middle Eastern quagmire.

As the fog of war thickens, one truth becomes undeniable: Israel and the United States are isolated. Trump’s reckless foreign policy has alienated Canada, fractured Europe, weakened U.S. credibility at the UN, and emboldened adversaries. Meanwhile, China remains the calm observer—watching America deplete itself in yet another unwinnable military adventure.

In a world where legitimacy hinges on law, consensus, and multilateral cooperation, this war has none. It is an illegal act of aggression, risking widespread destabilization across the Middle East and further eroding America’s standing on the global stage.

Let us hope against hope that sanity might still prevail. History is replete with lessons—lessons the United States seems determined to ignore. It invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to overthrow the Taliban and impose its own governance. After two decades of war, trillions of dollars spent, and thousands of lives lost, the U.S. withdrew—only to hand the reins back to the same Taliban it once ousted, departing in humiliation and disgrace.

If the U.S. and Israel now place their boots on Iranian soil, the result will be no different. Even after years—perhaps centuries—of warfare, the endgame will be the same: the Islamic Revolutionary Government will remain. The only difference will be the price paid. America and Israel will have lost more than just a war—they will have squandered legitimacy, global respect, and whatever moral authority they still possess. And with each such misadventure, they grow weaker, while those they sought to destroy grow more resilient.

By Qamar Bashir

 Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)

 Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France

 Former MD, SRBC | Macomb, Michigan, USA

by Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal

War, in its essence, is a tragic manifestation of human failure—failure to resolve differences through dialogue, failure to respect boundaries, and failure to uphold justice. It unleashes horrors upon the innocent and tarnishes civilizations with the blood of the undeserving. Yet, there are rare moments in history when the flames of war, though undesirable, illuminate truths long buried under arrogance, deceit, and unchecked aggression. The months of May and June this year bore witness to such moments—when two long-oppressed regions, South Asia and the Middle East, saw the masks fall off powerful aggressors, and the world stood astonished by the reversal of long-standing myths.

For many decades, India has positioned itself as a regional giant in South Asia, supported by international alliances and a growing sense of militaristic self-righteousness. It has used its influence to intimidate its neighbors, particularly Pakistan, engaging in diplomatic brinkmanship, covert destabilization, and an unending campaign of misinformation. However, on the 7th of May, by the grace of Almighty Allah, Pakistan responded with a swiftness and precision that shook the very foundation of India’s inflated self-image. What transpired on that single day was not merely a military maneuver—it was a moral rebuke, a strategic checkmate, and a divine balancing of the scales.

The Indian establishment had perhaps grown too comfortable in its assumptions. Years of unchecked narratives, exaggerated claims of superiority, and a false sense of invulnerability had clouded their judgment. But Pakistan’s resolve, born not just from military strength but from a deep-rooted sense of justice and faith, delivered a blow that reminded the world—and India itself—that arrogance has a price. Since that day, an unusual silence has prevailed across the border, a quiet not of peace-loving reflection, but of stunned recalibration. Yet, those familiar with history know well that old habits die hard. India may momentarily pause, but the patterns of provocation will likely continue. Still, May 7 has become a date engraved in memory—a day when truth, preparedness, and divine help intersected.

Equally astonishing has been the parallel unfolding in the Middle East. For decades, Israel has operated with impunity, shielded by powerful allies and international double standards. Its actions in Gaza and across the Palestinian territories have often been brutal, unchecked, and in violation of every principle of human dignity. Yet, it has rarely faced retaliation of equal magnitude. That changed when Iran, often vilified, isolated, and under tremendous economic and strategic pressure, responded in a manner that startled even its staunchest critics.

In a stunning display of resilience and strategy, Iran pierced through the layers of defense and struck the heart of Israel—Tel Aviv and other cities—bringing the war to the very streets from which oppression had long been dispatched. The world, accustomed to seeing Gaza in ruins, now witnessed images from within Israel that were indistinguishable from those usually reserved for occupied Palestinian land. For the first time in recent history, the line between aggressor and victim was blurred on Israeli soil.

This was not merely a retaliatory strike—it was a moment of reckoning. Iran, by the mercy of Allah, overcame not only its external enemies but also internal constraints and regional challenges to deliver a response that will be studied in strategic circles for years to come. It has, so far, emerged as a nation that refused to be bowed, demonstrating to the world that no matter how isolated a country may be, if it is rooted in belief and driven by justice, it can rewrite the rules of engagement.

It is crucial to understand that this is not a glorification of war. No person of conscience celebrates bloodshed. The loss of life—on any side—is a tragedy. Yet, what deserves recognition is the rare assertion of justice against long-standing oppression. These events have shown that power, when misused, can be challenged; that no state, however militarily powerful or diplomatically protected, can claim eternal exemption from consequences.

Both Pakistan and Iran, in their respective theatres of conflict, stood not as aggressors but as defenders—of their people, their dignity, and their right to exist in peace. Their actions were not fueled by hatred, but by necessity. And in doing so, they restored a sense of balance to a world that had for too long tilted in favor of tyranny.

These developments in May and June will be remembered—not because they brought pain, but because they brought clarity. They reminded us that faith still matters, that justice is not dead, and that divine will, when it intervenes, can reverse even the most entrenched injustices. Future generations will look back at these days not just as moments of conflict, but as moments of awakening—when the oppressed spoke, and the oppressors were forced to listen.

May Allah continue to protect the innocent, guide the unjust toward truth, and grant peace with honor to all nations. For real victory lies not in destroying others, but in upholding justice and living in dignity. And when justice prevails, even through the path of fire, it leaves behind not ashes—but light.

Trump remains a polarizing figure internationally, with a legacy in South Asia deeply entangled in transactional diplomacy and broken promises. To nominate him now, in the wake of the Israel-Gaza atrocities, escalating U.S.-Iran tensions, and Trump’s own mounting legal and political controversies, is not just bad diplomacy; it is disastrously timed, further isolating Pakistan from both moral credibility and regional relevance.

Abdul Waheed

Politics may often be transactional, strategic, and cold. It calculates in currencies of power and speaks in the sterile language of interests. But our perception, what we remember, what we judge, is rooted in conscience. It lives in the moral weight of human suffering. It hears the screams buried beneath rubble, sees the broken bodies of children, and refuses to forget what politics wants us to ignore.

We may not control the strategies of states or the closed-door deals of empires, but we reserve the right to judge. To name violence when it is masked as diplomacy. To expose cruelty when it is celebrated as strength. And we reserve the right to speak when justice is mocked by those who claim its name.

To propose the nomination of Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize is not just a moral error, it is an obscene betrayal. It is to reduce a once-sacred recognition of peace into a transactional prize for brute power.

Trump is not a man of silence or neutrality. He did not merely look away from Israel’s mass slaughter of civilians in Gaza, but actively endorsed it. He justified the bombings of hospitals, apartment blocks, and refugee camps. He offered Israel unconditional support, regardless of the death toll. Under his leadership, U.S. military aid surged, UN ceasefire resolutions were vetoed, and American power was used to shield and enable a campaign that many now recognize as genocide.

On Iran, Trump crossed every red line of diplomacy. His language was not the rhetoric of de-escalation or negotiation. It was the rhetoric of annihilation. He openly threatened the Iranian people, called for the evacuation of Tehran, and urged regime surrender under the looming shadow of destruction. These are not the acts of a peacemaker. They are the brutal footprints of a global warmonger, someone who normalized

ethnic cleansing, empowered occupation, and weaponized fear.

And now, the world has seen Trump’s direct hand in war. Under his presidency, the United States has launched full-scale military strikes on Iran, bombing nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Trump confirmed the operations himself, calling them a “success,” and bringing the United States into open participation in the Iran-Israel war. This is formal, declared war with rising civilian and military casualties on both sides, and the region inching toward collapse.

Pakistan’s decision to propose Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize was not only diplomatically immature but deeply discrediting. At a moment when the Muslim world watches Gaza’s children buried under rubble and Iranian cities under siege and strikes, Islamabad chose low level of over principle. There were other, wiser paths, economic engagement, regional diplomacy, strategic restraint, but instead it chose to applaud the very hand that fuels war and chaos.

To nominate Trump is to mock the suffering of Gaza’s children, to legitimize the destruction of Palestinian lives and homes, to silence the agony of displaced families, and to erase the moral boundary that once separated peace from brutality. If such conduct is considered worthy of a peace prize, then one must ask: What would be the signs of a world-class butcher?

At a time when the world watches with concern the rise of authoritarian populism, growing instability in the Middle East, and renewed scrutiny of past U.S. foreign policies, Islamabad’s move feels less like a principled gesture and more like a desperate plea for favor. Trump remains a polarizing figure internationally, with a legacy in South Asia deeply entangled in transactional diplomacy and broken promises. To nominate him now, in the wake of the Israel-Gaza atrocities, escalating U.S.-Iran tensions, and Trump’s own mounting legal and political controversies, is not just bad diplomacy; it is disastrously timed, further isolating Pakistan from both moral credibility and regional relevance.