Mudassar Rizwan
In the heart of one of the world’s most volatile regions, Pakistan has managed to navigate a remarkably balanced and pragmatic diplomatic course. As tensions flare between Iran, Israel, and the United States, Pakistan’s quiet yet consistent engagement in Middle Eastern affairs has been largely constructive. Its relations with a diverse set of actors—China, Russia, the United States, Iran, and key Arab states—give it a unique advantage as a potential mediator in the region’s growing web of conflict. However, one recent decision has raised eyebrows both domestically and internationally: Pakistan’s formal nomination of former U.S. President Donald Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize.
This move, while symbolic, risks undermining the very neutrality and diplomatic credibility that Pakistan has carefully cultivated. The nomination appears ill-timed, inconsistent with Pakistan’s recent diplomatic posturing, and raises concerns about political motivations that do not align with the national interest or regional realities.
A Region on the Brink The ongoing Iran-Israel conflict—exacerbated by the United States’ strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and Iran’s retaliatory missile attack on the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar—has pushed the Middle East to the edge of a broader war. These developments not only involve regional actors but also global powers, making the situation a tinderbox of geopolitical friction.
In this environment, Muslim-majority countries are struggling to assert principled positions without aligning too closely with one axis or the other. Pakistan, with its strategic geography, military strength, and diverse foreign relationships, is uniquely positioned to play the role of a peace-broker. So far, Islamabad has managed to remain relatively balanced—condemning violations of international law while expressing solidarity with nations under threat.
Pakistan’s Balanced Foreign Policy Pakistan’s foreign policy in recent years has carefully straddled geopolitical divides. Its growing strategic partnership with China under CPEC, its recalibrated relationship with the United States, its outreach to Russia, and its historical and religious ties with Iran and Arab states make it a natural stakeholder in regional peace.
This multidirectional diplomacy is both necessary and beneficial. It allows Pakistan to mediate, de-escalate, and maintain channels of dialogue with all parties. In a region defined by zero-sum rivalries, Pakistan’s equidistance is its strength. It’s what allows it to call for restraint in Tehran while appealing for responsible behavior in Washington and Tel Aviv.
Trump’s Nomination: A Diplomatic Misstep In this context, the decision to nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize appears not only diplomatically tone-deaf but also counterproductive. Trump remains a deeply polarizing figure in global politics, especially in the Muslim world. His administration was marked by highly controversial decisions—such as the relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), and the implementation of the Muslim travel ban.
To nominate such a figure for a peace prize in the wake of a Middle East conflict, in which he has arguably played a destabilizing role even after his presidency, seems like a misreading of both regional sentiment and global diplomatic norms. While Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire between Iran and Israel may have brought a temporary halt to violence, there is little evidence that it resulted from a sustained diplomatic effort or genuine peace-building initiative.
The nomination could be interpreted as Pakistan aligning itself with the Trump faction of U.S. politics—an alignment that does not reflect the broader national interest or diplomatic realism. In fact, it risks alienating Iran, straining Pakistan’s ties with moderate Arab states, and confusing its message to international partners about its role as a neutral actor in Middle Eastern diplomacy.
The Case for Withdrawing the Nomination If Pakistan wishes to maintain its position as an impartial and effective voice for peace in the Middle East, withdrawing Trump’s nomination would be a wise and principled step. Such a move would not only reaffirm Pakistan’s commitment to genuine multilateralism but also signal its refusal to politicize peace for the sake of temporary international attention.
Subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com for quality content.
A withdrawal would also reflect a deeper understanding of the regional landscape—where symbolic gestures carry heavy weight. By stepping back from this controversial nomination, Pakistan would send a clear message: that peace is not a media stunt, and that diplomatic recognition must be rooted in meaningful, consistent, and lawful action.
National Sovereignty and Public Sentiment Furthermore, the nomination seems at odds with domestic political sentiment. Trump’s image in Pakistan is far from positive, largely due to his rhetoric and policies targeting Muslim nations. Elevating him at a moment when regional unity is vital could provoke public backlash and give rise to criticism that Pakistan is compromising its sovereignty to appease foreign interests.
True sovereignty lies not only in controlling borders or managing resources but also in crafting an independent and principled foreign policy. By nominating Trump, Pakistan risks appearing opportunistic and reactive rather than visionary and strategic.
Conclusion: Strategic Gains Demand Strategic Choices Pakistan has a real opportunity to shape regional diplomacy in the Middle East. Its multifaceted relationships and historical credibility give it the tools to act as a stabilizing force. However, such influence must be exercised with care, consistency, and a commitment to long-term peace over short-term headlines.
The Trump Nobel nomination, in contrast, represents a deviation from that careful path. It injects unnecessary controversy into Pakistan’s diplomatic narrative and weakens its standing as a neutral player. To stay on course, Pakistan must recalibrate—prioritizing national interest, regional peace, and diplomatic integrity above symbolic gestures that carry more risk than reward.
