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.

World leaders, including former U.S. President Donald Trump, perceive Erdoğan’s crumbling strongman image

Nearly two million Turks have gathered in Istanbul to protest President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s decision to arrest his main political rival, Ekrem İmamoğlu, on what critics call fabricated corruption and terrorism charges. The move has ignited widespread outrage across Turkey, with demonstrators denouncing Erdoğan’s authoritarian grip on power and calling for his immediate resignation.

The arrest of İmamoğlu, who served as Istanbul’s mayor and was seen as Erdoğan’s strongest challenger in upcoming elections, has fueled speculation that the Turkish president is attempting to eliminate political competition ahead of a crucial vote. Protesters have taken to the streets chanting, “Enough is enough!” and “Turkey will not be silenced!” as security forces struggle to contain the surging crowds.

Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a Middle East expert, has been vocal about the situation. “Turks are not stupid; they see through Erdoğan’s cynicism and comment on its ironies,” Rubin stated. “Erdoğan accuses İmamoğlu of corruption, but Erdoğan not only has pending corruption cases dating to his own tenure as mayor, but he has since accumulated billions of dollars in unexplained wealth. He accuses İmamoğlu of supporting terror, but Turkish journalists photographed Erdoğan’s intelligence service transporting weaponry to an Al Qaeda affiliate in Turkey.”

The controversy deepened when Erdoğan’s government reportedly annulled İmamoğlu’s university degree, a requirement for presidential candidates. Rubin pointed out the hypocrisy in this move, noting, “Not only was Erdoğan’s own degree fraudulent, but the grounds for dismissing İmamoğlu’s degree were the illegitimacy of the university he attended in occupied northern Cyprus. As with its universities, so too is it with its entire regime.”

The international community is closely watching the unfolding crisis, with speculation growing about how world leaders, including former U.S. President Donald Trump, perceive Erdoğan’s crumbling strongman image. “Trump sees himself as a winner and despises losers,” Rubin said. “Whereas he may once have seen Erdoğan as a strongman, it is now clear that the would-be sultan wears no clothes. Trump and his team are correct: Turkey is important, but Turkey and Erdoğan are not synonymous. Simply put, Trump should dump Erdoğan.”

The massive protests, among the largest in Turkey’s modern history, highlight a growing sense of urgency among citizens determined to reclaim their democracy. The Turkish military and law enforcement agencies now face a crucial test of allegiance. “Turkey’s elite soldiers swear allegiance to the state and the people of Turkey, not one man who holds the constitution and rule of law with disdain,” Rubin emphasized.

With tensions reaching a boiling point, many analysts fear that Turkey is approaching a breaking point. Some protesters argue that peaceful demonstrations may not be enough to bring about real change in a system they see as rigged in Erdoğan’s favor.

Rubin did not mince words when outlining what may be necessary for political transformation: “The Turkish protestors now fight for the soul of their nation. Every protestor on the streets of Istanbul is as consequential for the future of modern Turkey as was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Protests might matter in democracies; however, Turkey is not a democracy. To succeed, they must march on Turkey’s palaces and prisons. If Erdoğan does not helicopter to the airport and flee the country, they should detain him, pending trial, even if passions are such that those who reach him first might simply hang him and release political prisoners, ranging from İmamoğlu to detained Kurdish politician Selahattin Demirtaş and philanthropist Osman Kavala.”

Rubin also hinted at the possibility of internal betrayal within Erdoğan’s own ranks. “Erdoğan, like Bashar al-Assad in Syria, may be tempted to hang on. While the United States will never say directly, the White House likely would not look askance at regional states that would offer reward to any Erdoğan bodyguard who turns their guns on the would-be despot to arrest him or, if he resists, to kill him.”

The coming days will be critical for Turkey’s political future. Will the protests succeed in toppling Erdoğan’s rule, or will the regime resort to even harsher crackdowns to suppress dissent? What is clear, however, is that Turkey is at an inflection point. As Rubin put it, “The age of Erdoğan must end. Turks can either take the next step, or they will have no one but themselves to blame for Turkey’s descent into dictatorship, state failure, and eventual civil war.”

It is clear that the people no longer accept the promises of regime leaders.

The vast majority of Iranians are struggling with poverty, unemployment and skyrocketing prices, with more than 60 million of Iran’s 82 million population living below the poverty line, and millions left to fend for themselves for their most basic necessities of life. The value of Iran’s currency has decreased 3,500 times compared to its value before the 1979 revolution.

In 2020, Iran’s currency became the least valuable in the world, after Venezuela. Social uprisings, rallies, and protests by the people of Iran regarding their poor living conditions and lack of civil liberties are daily occurrences throughout the country. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime has increased all its repressive measures, such as arbitrary arrests, cracking down on rallies and executions, to prevent another nationwide protest similar to the one in November 2019.

Just recently, on 23 February, the regime’s Revolutionary Guards killed dozens of Baluch people in the city of Saravan. Considering the above, it can be said that the Iranian society is very much ready for an overwhelming change. Iran’s 11th presidential election since the anti-monarchical revolution of 1979 is fast approaching, for which the people’s participation is of crucial importance to the regime.

In a recent speech, Khamenei referred to the presidential elections as a cure for all Iran’s social and economic problems and promised that the country’s problems would be solved by installing a young hardline government. In a meeting on 21 February with provincial governors of Iran, including the governor of the northwestern province of Ardabil, Iran’s Interior Minister, Rahmani Fazli said the credibility and prestige of the regime depended on the upcoming elections. Furthermore, most Friday prayer sermons are calling for a large outcome for elections. By showcasing the people’s participation in the so-called elections, the regime wants to legitimize its dictatorship.

After years of dictatorship by the Shah, in 1979 the people of Iran decisively rose up, brought the Shah’s monarchy to an end and hoped for a better future. But instead, they had to face another dictatorship, much more brutal than before.

Unlike the Shah, the clerical regime does actually hold presidential elections every four years, to give itself an air of democracy and to mimic democratic countries around the world. In the end, a president is elected. But what really goes on? Do the people really elect the president, and does he possess any real authority and autonomy?

In the last 42 years, from the very first elections, it became clear that in practice the person who has the real power and control of Iran’s government is the Supreme Leader and those affiliated with him. In Iran, elections are carried out under the close supervision of the Supreme Leader. The candidates must be approved by a body called the Guardian Council, affiliated with the Supreme Leader. That means only those candidates who are completely dedicated to the Supreme Leader and his leadership and policies are going to be approved by the Guardian Council.

The Guardian Council consists of 12 members, six of whom are “Faqih” and are directly elected by the Supreme Leader. The other six “jurists” are nominated by the head of the Judiciary, who the Supreme Leader appoints. This means that, in fact, all 12 members of the Guardian Council are directly or indirectly appointed by the Supreme Leader in order to engineer his wishes in the presidential elections and elect the candidates he wants from the ballot box. In this way, even those who were once part of this government’s leadership but refused to surrender to the Supreme Leader due to their desire for power, have been disqualified and no longer allowed to participate in the elections.

As a prime example, Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was himself the head of government, serving two terms as president and two terms as speaker, was disqualified from running in the 2013 elections due to a dispute with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Similarly, Ahmadinejad, who was president for two terms, was not allowed to run again in the 2017 elections. These, and others who were also disqualified, displayed their disagreements with the Supreme Leader in various ways. The conflict was always about receiving a share of the power. Those individuals who did not comply with the Supreme Leader were axed from their candidacy in the upcoming elections.

But, since the president and his government take charge of controlling the country’s finances, there is always competition and war between different factions of the regime, even though they are all in fact affiliated with the Supreme Leader.

Each side wants to have a firmer grip on the country’s wealth and wants to gain the leverage on obtaining more sources of wealth. The candidates themselves often accuse each other of looting, theft, and corruption, with thefts often amounting to several hundred million dollars. Once the elections are over, the same people who were accusing each other of theft and corruption come together, form the government, and it seems they have by then reached a deal to control various institutions after the elections by dividing power among themselves.

For example, there were several final candidates in the previous election, including former President Rouhani, Qalibaf, former Parliament Speaker and Raeisi, Chief Justice. In one of the debates, Qalibaf’s theft of several hundred million dollars during his tenure in Tehran’s municipality was revealed and mentioned, while Raeisi was revealed to have been one of the main perpetrators of the massacre of political prisoners in 1988.

Rouhani pointed to him and said he has done nothing but sentence people to death, imprisonment, and torture during these years. Ironically enough, after the election, Qalibaf was elected as speaker of Iran’s parliament and Raeisi was selected as head of the judiciary by Khamenei. That is, the three main branches of power were divided between these people, and the only ones who did not benefit from the elections were the people of Iran.

The regime’s situation has deteriorated so much that there are no political figures remaining in any of the factions of the regime whose corruption and grand thefts have not been exposed. So, during these years, it has been proven to the Iranian people that the presidential election is nothing more than a show and the people’s votes do not count. Election winners are all predetermined and engineered.

None of the so-called elected individuals are going to take any step towards the welfare of the people. This system does not allow for a fair election and representation. For example, women, who make up half of the country’s population, are not allowed to run for president. Despite the regime’s efforts and their false promises and propaganda, every election has witnessed lower participation, and many people have boycotted altogether.

According to recent polls taken by regime affiliated media, which usually differ greatly from reality by being several times higher than the actual number, the turnout in the upcoming elections is predicted to be 20%. It is clear that the people no longer accept the promises of regime leaders. The overwhelming majority of the people want regime change and the establishment of a secular democratic government where elections are free and democratic.

Cyrus Yaqubi is a Research Analyst and Iranian Foreign Affairs Commentator investigating the social issues and economy of the middle east countries in general and Iran in particular.