Barrister Naveed Ahmed
The government of Pakistan appears to be caught in a troubling contradiction—one that risks undermining its global credibility and moral standing. Following former U.S. President Donald Trump’s aggressive military action against Iran, the decision to maintain his nomination for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize seems not only tone-deaf but dangerously inconsistent with the principles of peace and international law.
Pakistan’s reported endorsement of Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize may have initially been driven by diplomatic signaling or a miscalculated hope for international leverage. However, the recent unilateral U.S. airstrikes on Iran, which reportedly targeted nuclear sites and resulted in regional destabilization, have sharply altered the equation. In this context, keeping Trump’s nomination intact is not just a diplomatic misstep—it is a moral and strategic failure.
At the heart of the issue lies a basic question: Can a nation simultaneously condemn military aggression and honor its perpetrator as a champion of peace? The answer is clear—it cannot. By nominating or continuing to support Trump’s Nobel candidacy, especially after such provocative actions, Pakistan sends mixed signals to its own citizens, the Muslim world, and the international community.
This contradiction erodes Pakistan’s ability to position itself as a voice for justice, peace, and neutrality in international affairs. If Islamabad truly wishes to stand by its principles—as it did when it condemned the recent U.S. attacks on Iran—it must realign its actions with its stated values.
Iran, a neighboring Muslim-majority country with deep historical, cultural, and economic ties to Pakistan, was the direct target of Trump’s aggressive policies, both during his presidency and now in his post-office political maneuverings. The most recent airstrikes have reportedly caused not only structural damage but also the loss of civilian lives. For Pakistan to remain silent—or worse, to honor the architect of this aggression—would be a betrayal of regional solidarity and human rights.
Moreover, Iran’s restraint in the face of provocation and its diplomatic engagement with neighboring countries has been notable. In contrast, Trump’s approach has consistently been one of escalation, disruption, and unilateralism. How then, can such conduct be worthy of a prize meant to symbolize peace, reconciliation, and humanitarian values?
The Nobel Peace Prize carries symbolic weight far beyond the ceremony in Oslo. It stands as an emblem of humanity’s commitment to non-violence, diplomacy, and constructive conflict resolution. Awarding or even nominating individuals who display the opposite traits devalues the essence of the prize. If peace is to be honored, it must not be confused with political theater or militaristic dominance.
By continuing to back Trump’s nomination, Pakistan risks aligning itself with a version of peace that tolerates preemptive strikes, dismisses international consensus, and undermines multilateral diplomacy. Such a position is incompatible with Pakistan’s foreign policy objectives, especially in the Middle East and the Muslim world, where public opinion strongly favors sovereignty, peace, and resistance against external domination.
The people of Pakistan, who have endured the consequences of foreign military interventions and drone warfare for decades, understand the devastating toll of armed conflict. The government’s silence or passive complicity in praising a figure like Trump—who once openly endorsed harsher drone policies and Muslim bans—can create disillusionment among citizens, especially the youth, civil society, and the politically aware middle class.
Please, subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com for quality content.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnm1Th5W8do&t=1111s&ab_channel=RepublicPolicy
For a government that often claims to champion Muslim unity and the rights of oppressed nations, Trump’s Nobel nomination is a betrayal of those very claims. If the state seeks to retain moral high ground and inspire domestic confidence in its foreign policy, it must correct this error.
There is, however, a way forward. Pakistan must officially and publicly withdraw any nomination or endorsement of Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. This withdrawal must be accompanied by a clear and principled statement reaffirming Pakistan’s commitment to international law, non-aggression, and regional peace.
Such an action would not only restore credibility but also demonstrate maturity and courage on the global stage. It would send a powerful message: Pakistan does not compromise on core values for transient diplomatic advantage. It would also help rebuild trust with allies and partners who expect consistency and integrity from Islamabad in global affairs.
History is not written by accidents but by decisions. Continuing to support Donald Trump for a peace prize in the aftermath of violent aggression against Iran is a decision that history will not judge kindly. It will be seen as a line of shame in Pakistan’s diplomatic record—unless it is reversed.
In a world increasingly shaped by public perception, symbolic gestures carry immense power. Pakistan must now choose whether it wishes to be remembered as a silent bystander to militarism or as a principled actor standing firmly on the side of peace and justice.
The decision is simple. Withdraw the nomination. Reclaim the narrative. Restore dignity to Pakistan’s foreign policy.
