Machado made the remarks at a news conference in Madrid, where she said Trump had “risked the lives of his country’s citizens for Venezuela’s freedom,” referring to a U.S. military operation earlier this year that led to the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.

The opposition leader had presented the medal to Trump during a January meeting at the White House, shortly after the operation in Caracas. The gesture drew international attention, particularly as Trump has long expressed interest in receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee clarified at the time that while a medal can change hands, the Nobel Peace Prize itself cannot be transferred, revoked, or shared, and remains formally awarded to Machado.

Machado said the U.S. intervention was something “Venezuelans will never forget,” adding that her decision to give Trump the medal was deliberate. “Consequently, no, I have no regrets,” she said.

She also confirmed ongoing coordination with Washington regarding her planned return to Venezuela, describing the relationship as based on “mutual respect and understanding.” Machado added that she sees the United States as central to advancing a democratic transition in the country.

Her comments come as Venezuela’s opposition calls for new presidential elections following Maduro’s removal from power. Machado, who was barred from running in the 2024 election, has not yet confirmed whether she would contest any future vote.

Chirinne Ardakani, a France-based lawyer representing Mohammadi, said two Iranian lawyers and the activist’s sister visited her at Zanjan Prison on Sunday and found her in a weakened condition.

According to Ardakani, Mohammadi, 53, appeared pale, had lost significant weight and was being assisted by a nurse during the visit. Mohammadi told her lawyers that she had been unconscious for more than an hour on March 24 and was later informed by a prison doctor that she had likely suffered a heart attack.

She has since experienced recurring chest pain and breathing difficulties, Ardakani said, adding that Mohammadi described her condition as severe.The lawyer said authorities have denied requests to transfer Mohammadi to a hospital or allow her to see a cardiologist.

Direct communication with Mohammadi’s Iran-based lawyers was not immediately possible, as they do not speak to media. Ardakani said an internet blackout in Iran has further restricted information flow, noting that speaking to foreign media without authorization can lead to prison sentences.

A prison official was present during the visit, which was brief.Background and legal statusMohammadi, a rights lawyer, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2023 while in prison.

She was arrested again in December in Mashhad and sentenced to an additional seven years in prison following a ruling by a Revolutionary Court.Prior to that, she had been serving a sentence of 13 years and nine months on charges related to national security and propaganda, though she had been released on medical furlough in late 2024.

Her husband, Taghi Rahmani, previously said her health had deteriorated following alleged physical abuse during her December arrest.

Mohammadi has a history of heart problems and has suffered multiple heart attacks in custody, undergoing emergency surgery in 2022, according to her supporters.

The Nobel Committee last month criticized what it described as life-threatening mistreatment of Mohammadi by Iranian authorities.

This clarification came after Venezuelan Nobel Peace Prize laureate María Corina Machado indicated she might want to give her 2025 Nobel Peace Prize to another individual, but the institute made clear such a transfer is not permitted under Nobel Foundation statutes.

According to the Nobel Institute, the statutes governing the prize do not allow for the decision to be appealed once a laureate has been announced, and there is no mechanism for sharing or passing on the award after it has been conferred.

The institute noted that while laureates are free to speak about their intentions after receiving the award, the awarding bodies do not comment on the personal actions or statements of recipients once the prize has been given.

Machado, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her role in advocating for democracy and human rights, had suggested during a television interview that presenting the prize to another individual could be an act of appreciation for particular contributions.

However, the institute’s statement stressed the permanence of the Nobel Prize once awarded, and that the decision stands for all time without provision for transfer or modification.

The Nobel Peace Prize is one of the most prestigious international honors, given annually to individuals or organisations that have made significant efforts toward peace, dialogue, or conflict resolution.

Recipients receive a medal, a diploma and a monetary award, and the recognition is intended to highlight their work and contributions in the context of global peace efforts.

Machado’s remarks about potentially sharing or dedicating her prize generated wide media attention, prompting the Nobel Institute to clarify the rules governing the award’s permanence.

The institute’s clarification reinforces that the integrity of the Nobel Peace Prize lies in its fixed nature once granted, preserving the meaning and intent behind the honour awarded to recipients.

While laureates can express personal sentiments about their awards, the Nobel Foundation’s statutes and procedures dictate that the official status of the prize remains unchanged after the committee’s decision.

The Nobel Prize committees have long maintained that they do not revisit decisions or allow changes after announcing laureates, upholding the principle that awards reflect the achievements recognised at the time of selection.

This confirmation from the Nobel Institute comes amid ongoing discussions in international media about the role of peace prizes and their impact on global affairs.

Machado’s Nobel Peace Prize was announced in 2025, and her advocacy work has been highlighted for its commitment to democratic principles and human rights.

The Nobel Institute’s message underscores the importance of understanding the formal rules and traditions that govern internationally recognised awards such as the Nobel Peace Prize.

During a phone call with President Trump, El-Sisi congratulated the US leader on successfully facilitating an agreement between Israel and Hamas that brings hope for lasting calm in the Gaza Strip. “You truly deserve the Nobel Peace Prize,” El-Sisi told Trump, highlighting the international appreciation for his dedication to peace and humanitarian progress.

El-Sisi also invited President Trump to attend a celebration in Egypt marking the formal conclusion of the ceasefire deal. The event will serve as a platform to acknowledge the collective efforts of regional and international stakeholders in achieving this historic milestone. The invitation reflects Egypt’s ongoing role as a mediator and its commitment to fostering stability and dialogue in the region.

The ceasefire agreement, negotiated through intensive discussions in Cairo, includes provisions for a hostage exchange and establishes a framework to maintain calm between Israel and Hamas. Hundreds of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails are set to be released in exchange for hostages currently held in Gaza, symbolizing a mutual commitment to peace and humanitarian cooperation.

El-Sisi emphasized the importance of moving forward with implementing the ceasefire in all its stages, signaling a coordinated effort to ensure the agreement translates into tangible improvements on the ground. The phased approach will allow both parties to gradually restore trust and stabilize the situation for the benefit of civilians in the conflict-affected region.

The recognition of President Trump’s efforts reflects broader international optimism that sustained dialogue and proactive diplomacy can pave the way for long-term stability in the Middle East. Analysts note that such high-level engagement demonstrates the potential for leaders to influence positive change and foster an environment conducive to peace.

Egypt’s central role in the mediation process highlights the country’s strategic position as a facilitator of dialogue. By bringing key stakeholders to the negotiating table, Cairo has reinforced its reputation as a hub for constructive diplomacy. The upcoming celebration will underscore Egypt’s commitment to supporting peace initiatives and its capability to foster meaningful international partnerships.

The ceasefire deal has already generated hope among residents of Gaza, who have endured years of conflict. With hostilities paused, there is potential for increased humanitarian assistance, economic recovery, and infrastructure development. The agreement also sets a precedent for future cooperation, reinforcing the importance of dialogue, negotiation, and international support in resolving conflicts.

Observers note that the planned visit of President Trump to Egypt will further strengthen bilateral ties and highlight the value of sustained diplomatic engagement. It provides an opportunity for leaders to publicly demonstrate their shared commitment to peace, human welfare, and regional stability.

El-Sisi’s praise for Trump also serves as a symbolic gesture recognizing the global impact of effective leadership in conflict resolution. By acknowledging his efforts, Egypt underscores the importance of proactive international diplomacy and the tangible outcomes it can achieve in sensitive geopolitical environments.

As preparations continue for the celebration in Egypt, officials emphasize that the ceasefire is only the beginning of a collaborative process. The agreement lays the foundation for further dialogue, ongoing humanitarian support, and long-term initiatives aimed at fostering trust and stability across the region.

This historic moment, highlighted by El-Sisi’s commendation and the upcoming celebrations, marks a positive turning point for the Middle East. It illustrates how dedicated international cooperation, regional leadership, and constructive dialogue can bring about meaningful change, providing hope for lasting peace and security for affected communities.

This situation also reflects a collapse of the justice system. A culture of impunity has taken root, eroding public faith in the legal system.

For the first time in Bangladesh’s history, an interim government has been formed under the leadership of a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Many hoped this government would end political unrest and repression, ushering in a new era of good governance and justice. Yet, in just ten months, this government has become synonymous with suffering and disillusionment for ordinary citizens.

On July 9, 2025, in the heart of Old Dhaka, the brutal broad-daylight murder of a businessman was not merely a homicide—it was a stark, naked revelation of state failure. This failure goes beyond the cruelty of the act or the audacity of the perpetrators. It is rooted in the government’s silence, the inaction of the administration, and, above all, the arrogance of criminals operating under political protection.

The details of the incident expose extreme brutality. The victim, Lal Chand alias Sohag, aged 39, was a scrap trader. The murder took place around 6 p.m. in front of Gate No. 3 of Mitford Hospital on Rajani Ghosh Lane—at a time when the city’s bustle had not yet paused for the evening. Approximately 19 to 20 assailants arrived on seven motorcycles and surrounded him. They beat him with bricks, stones, and concrete blocks, dragged him through the street, stomped on his body, and celebrated with barbaric delight. Bystanders, terrified, dared not intervene. The killing was filmed and quickly went viral, sparking outrage across the country.

But this was not an isolated act of violence. It was a premeditated murder over extortion. According to local sources, influential leaders of the BNP’s affiliated organizations—Jubo Dal, Chhatra Dal, and Swechchhasebak Dal—had demanded five lakh takas in extortion from the victim. Upon refusal, he was murdered. The most alarming aspect is that despite political names being linked to the incident, no visible or effective administrative action has been taken. While a few arrests have been made, the masterminds remain untouched.

This single murder reflects the severe deterioration of Bangladesh’s law and order situation. But the broader statistics are even more terrifying. According to data from the Bangladesh Police Headquarters, under the interim government led by Nobel Peace Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus, crime has surged at an alarming rate in just ten months (September 2024 to June 2025).

During this time, 3,554 murders were committed nationwide. There were 4,105 cases of rape and 12,726 incidents of violence against women and children. Additionally, 610 armed robberies, 1,526 cases of banditry, and 97 riots occurred. There were 819 kidnappings, five acid attacks, 2,304 burglaries, and 7,310 thefts. Disturbingly, there were also 479 recorded attacks on law enforcement agencies, underscoring the gravity of the situation and the state’s loss of control.

These figures are not just numbers—they are testimony to a historic failure of governance and a complete collapse of public safety. That such horror could unfold in such a short span does not merely indicate governmental incompetence; it suggests a troubling absence of political will.

Dr. Muhammad Yunus is a globally renowned figure. He earned the Nobel Peace Prize for empowering women through microcredit. Yet, under his leadership, this interim government has utterly failed to guarantee even the most basic level of security for its citizens.

People had hoped that this administration would eliminate irregularities, corruption, and repressive politics, and establish a peaceful political climate. The reality, however, is grim: instead of confronting crime, this government appears to have surrendered to it.

Even more alarming is how senior members of the interim government, particularly the press wing of the Chief Adviser, continue to deny the surge in crime, downplaying the justice crisis with shocking indifference.

In most cases, perpetrators are shielded from the law due to their political affiliations. Political influence over police investigations is so blatant that many cases are suppressed before any inquiry begins. Even the judiciary appears to be under invisible pressure, casting serious doubt over the possibility of justice.

This is not merely a failure of the police force—it is a reflection of a profound moral and political void within the government. The interim administration came to power promising to protect human rights and uphold the rule of law. Yet, its actions suggest it has become a guardian of special interest groups, abandoning the safety of ordinary citizens. How incompetent must a government be for a businessman to be murdered so savagely in one of the capital’s busiest areas in broad daylight?

This situation also reflects a collapse of the justice system. A culture of impunity has taken root, eroding public faith in the legal system. As hope for justice fades, people either remain silent or are tempted to take the law into their own hands. This is a dangerous trend that is pushing society toward chaos.

Citizens’ basic demands are security, justice, and accountability from the state. A government that fails to provide these cannot claim to be democratic or people-oriented.

Dr. Yunus’s interim government wanted to be seen as an ethically superior body before the next elections. But now, one must ask: How ethical is this government? A businessman was killed in the street, and the government responded with token statements instead of concrete actions.

International human rights organizations, usually vocal about Bangladesh, have gone conspicuously silent. Groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which previously condemned rights violations in the country, have offered no reaction to this alarming deterioration—as if law and order and human rights are flourishing under Dr. Yunus’s interim government.

In reality, police forces are increasingly accused of collusion with criminals, damaging Bangladesh’s image globally. And while mainstream media remains cautious due to fear of reprisals, social media is abuzz with criticism and outrage. Yet the government has offered no substantive response. Instead, it continues labeling these incidents as “isolated,” denying the depth of the crisis—an attitude that signals something even more dangerous.

What the country urgently needs now is an independent, neutral, and accountable administration—one that serves the people, not political or financial elites. Not just in Sohag’s case, but for every murder, rape, or major crime of the past ten months, there must be impartial investigations and swift justice.

The government must move beyond press briefings and acknowledge reality. It must immediately publish a clear roadmap to combat crime, ensure access to justice, and hold institutions accountable.

Bangladesh is no longer a poor, repressed nation. Its citizens are now aware, digitally connected, and demand answers. If those in power fail to act now, the people will soon hold them accountable in the court of history.

In the end, if even a Nobel Peace Prize winner cannot bring peace to the people, then that Nobel Prize becomes a cruel irony of history. And if this interim government cannot ensure even basic security, then the legitimacy of any future election or political process it oversees will be called into question. The answer must come now—not in words, but in action.

Author: Human Rights Lawyer; Laureate of the French Government’s Marianne Initiative for Human Rights Defenders 2023; Founder President of JusticeMakers Bangladesh in France (JMBF). You can reach him by email: shahanur.islam@jmbf.org; Website: www.jmbf.org

The Norwegian Nobel committee in October awarded the prize to Mohammadi, 51, for her non-violent fight “against oppression of women in Iran” and the promotion of human rights for all, in a rebuke to Tehran’s theocratic leaders.

Her 17-year-old twins Kiana and Ali Rahmani collected the prize, a gold medal and diploma, at a ceremony in Oslo’s City Hall attended by several hundred guests. The prize includes a cheque for 11 million Swedish crowns (about $1 million).

In her speech, sent from Iran’s notorious Evin prison, Mohammadi said continued resistance and non-violence were the best strategies to bring about change.

“The Iranian people, with perseverance, will overcome repression and authoritarianism. Have no doubt, this is certain,” she said in her speech read in French.

The women’s rights advocate is serving multiple sentences on charges including spreading propaganda against the Islamic Republic after her last arrest in November 2021.

“I write this message from behind the high, cold walls of a prison,” Mohammadi said, adding that her life and lives of many activists in Iran had been a constant struggle “to stay alive”.

Mohammadi was symbolically represented on stage in Oslo by her portrait and an empty chair, highlighting that she is among only a handful of laureates to be prevented from attending the ceremony since the award’s 1901 inception.

She was awarded the prize just over a year following 22-year-old Mahsa Amini’s death in the custody of Iranian morality police after allegedly violating rules related to the hijab, an Islamic headscarf.

Tehran Haz Accused Nobel Committe Of Meddling

Amini’s death unleashed years of pent-up anger among Iranians over issues ranging from economic misery and discrimination against ethnic minorities to stricter social and political controls.

Women, including schoolgirls, took off and burned hijabs, revolting against laws obliging women to cover their hair and wear loose-fitting clothes during nationwide protests that were put down with deadly force.

“We believe that the mandatory hijab imposed by the government is neither a religious obligation or a cultural tradition, but rather a means of maintaining control and submission throughout society,” Mohammadi said.

Iran has called the protests Western-led subversion, accusing the Nobel committee of meddling and politicizing the issue of human rights.

The protest movement, which adopted the slogan – Woman, Life Freedom – has significantly contributed to the expansion of civil resistance in Iran, and went on despite severe government repression, Mohammadi said in her speech.

“The reality is that the Islamic Republic regime is at its lowest level of legitimacy and popular social support,” she said.

“Now is the time for international civil society to support Iranian civil society, and I will exert all my efforts in this regard,” Mohammadi added.

The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded annually on Dec. 10, the anniversary of the death of Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel, who founded the awards in his 1895 will.

The decision by Mohammadi, 51, increases pressure on Iran’s theocracy over her incarceration, a month after being awarded the Nobel for her years of activism despite a decadeslong campaign by the government targeting her.

Meanwhile, another incarcerated activist, lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh, reportedly needs medical care she has yet to receive. She was arrested while attending a funeral for a teenage girl who died under disputed circumstances in Tehran’s Metro while not wearing a hijab.

The Free Narges Mohammadi campaign, citing a statement from her family abroad, said she sent a message from Evin Prison on Monday and “informed her family that she started a hunger strike several hours ago.” It said Mohammadi and her lawyer for weeks have sought her transfer to a specialist hospital for heart and lung care.

Days earlier, Mohammadi’s family described her as suffering from blockages in three veins and lung pressure. Despite that, they said, prison officials refused to take Mohammadi to the hospital due to her refusal to wear the hijab.

“Narges went on a hunger strike today … protesting two things: The Islamic Republic’s policy of delaying and neglecting medical care for sick inmates, resulting in the loss of the health and lives of individuals. The policy of ‘death’ or ‘mandatory hijab’ for Iranian women,” the statement read.

It said the Islamic Republic “is responsible for anything that happens to our beloved Narges.” It later described Mohammadi as “only consuming water, sugar and salt” while refusing to take medicine.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, which awarded Mohammadi the peace prize, said it was “deeply concerned” about the laureate’s health.

“The requirement that female inmates must wear a hijab in order to be hospitalized, is inhumane and morally unacceptable,” said Berit Reiss-Andersen, the chair of the committee. “Narges Mohammadi’s initiation of a hunger strike demonstrates the seriousness of the situation. The Norwegian Nobel Committee urges the Iranian authorities to provide Narges Mohammadi, and other female inmates, with whatever medical assistance they may need.”

Activist groups also reported that Mohammadi had begun a hunger strike.

“Just last week, Mohammadi was denied access to medical treatment at an outside hospital due to her refusal to adhere to compulsory hijab requirements during the transfer to the medical facility,” the group Human Rights Activists in Iran said.

Iranian officials and its state-controlled television network did not acknowledge Mohammadi’s hunger strike, which is common with cases involving activists there. Iran’s mission to the United Nations did not respond to a request for comment.

For observant Muslim women, the head covering is a sign of piety before God and modesty in front of men outside their families. In Iran, the hijab — and the all-encompassing black chador worn by some — has long been a political symbol as well, particularly after becoming mandatory in the years following the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

While women in Iran hold jobs, academic positions and even government appointments, their lives are tightly controlled in part by laws like the mandatory hijab. Iran and neighboring Afghanistan remain the only countries to mandate that. Since Amini’s death, however, more women are choosing not to wear it despite an increasing campaign by authorities targeting them and businesses serving them.

Mohammadi has kept up her activism despite numerous arrests by Iranian authorities and spending years behind bars.

She has remained a leading light for nationwide, women-led protests sparked by the death last year of a 22-year-old woman in police custody that have grown into one of the most intense challenges to Iran’s theocratic government. That woman, Mahsa Amini, had been detained for allegedly not wearing her headscarf to the liking of authorities.

In October, teenager Armita Geravand suffered a head injury while in the Tehran Metro without a hijab. Geravand’s parents appeared in state media footage saying a blood pressure issue, a fall or perhaps both contributed to their daughter’s injury. Activists abroad have questioned whether Geravand may have been pushed or attacked for not wearing the hijab. She died weeks later.

Authorities arrested Sotoudeh, a 60-year-old human rights lawyer, while she attended Geravand’s funeral. PEN America, which advocates for free speech worldwide, said last week that “50 police and security personnel charged at the peaceful group, beating some and dragging others across gravestones as they were arrested.”

Sotoudeh was not wearing a hijab at the time of her arrest, and she suffered head injuries that have led to prolonged headaches, PEN America said.

“Her arrest was already an outrage, but there is no world in which violence against a writer and human rights advocate can be justified,” PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel said in a statement.

The laureate of the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize, one of the world’s top accolades, will be announced on Friday in Oslo. Here is a look at how the award works:

Who can Win?

The prize should go to the person “who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses”, according to the will of Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, who founded the awards.

Thousands of people can propose names: members of governments and parliaments; current heads of state; university professors of history, social sciences, law and philosophy; and former Nobel Peace Prize laureates, among others.

Who decides?

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, which consists of five individuals appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. They are often retired politicians, but not always. The current committee is led by a lawyer and includes two academics.

They are all put forward by Norwegian political parties and their appointments reflect the balance of power in parliament.

How do they decide?

Nominations close on Jan. 31. Members of the committee can make their own nominations, no later than at the first meeting of the committee in February.

They discuss all the nominations, then establish a shortlist. Each nominee is then assessed and examined by a group of permanent advisers and other experts.

The committee meets roughly once a month to discuss the nominations. They usually make their decision at the final committee meeting, which tends to be at the beginning of October.

The committee seeks to get a consensus on its selection. If it can’t, the decision is reached by majority vote.

The last time a member quit in protest was in 1994, because Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat shared the prize with Israel’s Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin.

Who is nominated?

Nominations are secret for 50 years, but those who nominate can choose to divulge their choices.

The only thing the Norwegian Nobel Committee will comment on is the number of candidates. This year, there are 318 contenders – 211 individuals and 107 organisations.

Those we know are nominated are Greta Thunberg and Fridays for Future, NATO, the European Court of Human Rights, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, and the “people of Hong Kong”.

Other possible contenders, if they are nominated, are Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Angela Merkel, the World Health Organization and its director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

Is Donald Trump nominated?

He may be, but we don’t know. He is nominated for next year’s prize, by a Norwegian lawmaker and a Swedish parliamentarian, separately, for helping broker a deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, and for peacemaking efforts in the Balkans.

What does the Laureate get?

A medal, a diploma, ten million Swedish crowns ($1.10 million) – and immediate global attention.

South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the 1984 laureate, has said becoming a Nobel laureate was a double-edged sword. “One day no one was listening. The next, I was an oracle,” he is quoted as saying in his authorised biography.

When is the Ceremony?

It will take place on Dec. 10, the anniversary of Alfred Nobel’s death.

This year, due to coronavirus restrictions, it will be held in the Court of the University of Oslo, with around 100 guests only, rather than at the bigger Oslo City Hall, where it has been held since 1989.

Do Norwegian politicians have a sense of humor after all? Or are they being deliberately provocative by nominating President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize in the middle of the biggest campaign of character assassination faced by any Western politician in recent times?

At first glance, Trump may actually have a claim to the dynamite-maker’s prize. He has brokered normalization between Israel and two of its erstwhile Arab enemies, with more expected to follow. He may have also cleared the last foyer of conflict in former Yugoslavia by mediating a settlement between Serbia and Kosovo.

In both cases he has managed to jump historic, emotional and ideological hurdles that many, including this writer, believed could not be crossed in the foreseeable future. How he did it and what underhand measures he employed to clinch the deals is a matter for speculation. But what matters, as far as the Nobel judges are concerned, is that he did it; he brought peace where there was conflict.

Trump the peacemaker? The liberal elites on both sides of the Atlantic react to that phrase with a hearty “Ha! Ha! Ha!” or an angry cry of “scandal”.

But, wait a minute, a closer look may tell a different story. First, with the exception of Dwight Eisenhower, Trump is the only US president since World War II not to have led his nation into a war, big or small.

President Harry Truman took America into the Korean War. John F. Kennedy got the US involved in the Vietnam War. His successor Lyndon Johnson extended the war into Laos. Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford prolonged the war and extended it into Cambodia. Ronald Reagan had his mini-war in Grenada plus proxy wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua while also helping British allies in the Falklands conflict.

George H. W. Bush led the invasion of Iraq plus a mini but costly incursion in Somalia. Bill Clinton dragged the US into the Yugoslav conflict. George W. Bush drew a double by invading first Afghanistan and then Iraq. Leading from behind, Barack Obama got the US involved in the Libyan war while starting the largest drone war in history in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. He also incited the Arabs to rebellion against their governments but then refused to raise a finger to help them, thus lighting the fire of civil wars, notably in Syria. His support for the mullahs of Tehran also encouraged them to speed up their empire-building efforts, plunging much of the Middle East into violence and war.

In contrast, Trump the dealmaker, ignoring hawkish advisers, refused to take military action against North Korea. He even accepted to demean himself in the eyes of many by treating the North Korean despot Kim Jung-un with decorum. Trump also pulled the plug on a series of planned airstrikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Last but not least, Trump tried to broker a deal with the Afghan Taliban.

One may or may not approve of those acts, and in some cases, notably legitimizing the Taliban, one may even have a sense of betrayal. But, as far as Nobel judges are concerned, all those acts were aimed at making peace.

I doubt that, in the end, the liberal elites in control of the Nobel game will go for Trump. But if they do, he will be the fifth US president to gain the accolade. And if he does, he would be the most deserving of them all.

The first to win the Nobel was Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, for mediating a ceasefire in the Russo-Japanese war, which Russia had lost. The mediation did not remove the core of the conflict over the Sea of Okhotsk, with Russia recovering its losses in World War II and annexing the Japanese Kuril archipelago. Roosevelt, endearingly known as “Teddy”, was far from a “peace and love” icon. He waged war to complete the conquest of the Philippines and campaigned for joining the First World War. Worse still, the dear “Teddy” was a promoter of eugenics, ordering that “criminals should be sterilized and mentally retarded be forbidden to have descendants.”

The second of the four was President Woodrow Wilson, in 1919. Hailed for his “liberal internationalism,” Wilson had led the US into World War I, at the end of which he published a 14-point declaration promising self-determination to numerous “nations” and proto-nations in Europe and the Middle East. Britain and France ignored the declaration and went on to expand their empires with a series of treaties from Versailles to Lausanne and Montreux.

During his presidency, Wilson the peace laureate had led several wars, notably an invasion of Mexico to seize Vera Cruz and destabilize the despot Victoriano Huerta in favor of the “liberal” Venustiano Carranza. Wilson’s Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan talked a good talk for liberal elites but achieved little. Had he been around today, Wilson’s thinly disguised racism alone would have disqualified him.

The third Nobel laureate was Jimmy Carter for “his decades of untiring efforts to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts and advance democracy.” Since Carter was president only for four years, it is not clear where those “decades of efforts” came from. In any case, by arming, training and financing the first Mujahedin, Carter started a war that is still going on in Afghanistan. Carter’s Keystone Cops-style mini-invasion of Iran to release US hostages showed that was not shy about using force; he just didn’t know how to do it.

The fourth Nobel winner was Barack Obama, who was chosen even before he had become president. His case illustrated what in 1817 Coleridge called “a suspension of disbelief” with Nobel judges deciding to honor Obama for what he might do in the future. That Obama did not turn out to be the champion, of “make love, not war,” as Nobel judges had expected, is beside the point. His fans like him because he talked their talk without walking the walk.

Trump’s message of “make deals, not war” isn’t intellectually sexy enough for the liberal elites who set the norm for Nobel-style gimmicks. He may yet win the Nobel, but don’t hold your breath.

Article first published on GateStone Institute International Policy Council.

Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987. He is the Chairman of Gatestone Europe.