Donald Trump's Nobel Peace Prize nomination in jeopardy after explosive fallout with Ukraine and Pakistan—what happens now?
Donald Trump has been formally nominated for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, credited for helping negotiate a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. The nomination was submitted by U.S. Republican Congressman Buddy Carter, who described Trump's efforts as 'extraordinary and historic.' In his letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Carter highlighted Trump's role in halting a rapidly escalating conflict, saying the agreement 'offered the world a rare glimpse of hope.'
Carter added that Trump's involvement required 'both courage and clarity,' and that the resulting ceasefire helped prevent what could have been a wider regional war in the Middle East.
Ukrainian lawmaker withdraws support over Ukraine stance
However, Trump's nomination has not been without controversy. Oleksandr Merezhko, a senior Ukrainian lawmaker who had earlier nominated Trump for the same prize, withdrew his support. Merezhko, who chairs Ukraine's parliamentary foreign affairs committee, told Newsweek he no longer believed Trump could deliver on his promise to end the Russia-Ukraine war.
'I have lost any sort of faith and belief in Trump and his ability to secure a ceasefire between Moscow and Kyiv,' he said. Merezhko also criticized Trump's reluctance to impose sanctions on Russia and described his response to recent missile attacks on Kyiv as 'appeasement.'
In March, Ukraine accepted a U.S.-backed peace proposal, but Russia has not responded. Trump previously claimed he would end the conflict within 24 hours if re-elected. In May, he said, 'If Putin is stalling, we'll respond a little bit differently,' but did not follow up with action.
Pakistan praises Trump, then Condemns US strikes
Pakistan had initially expressed strong support for Trump's nomination. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar credited him for reducing tensions between India and Pakistan and submitted a formal nomination.
However, this endorsement was short-lived. A day after Trump's ceasefire announcement, he approved a U.S. strike on three Iranian nuclear sites. Pakistan's Foreign Ministry quickly responded with criticism, calling the military action 'deeply disturbing.'
Ceasefire named '12-day war'; Trump voices disappointment
The ceasefire between Israel and Iran, which Trump announced on a Monday, came just two days after the military action. He proposed naming the conflict the '12-Day War' and called the resolution a pivotal step toward avoiding broader violence in the region.
Despite this, Trump expressed frustration over his past diplomatic efforts going unrecognized. On Truth Social, he said, 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do,' referencing previous attempts like the Abraham Accords and mediation efforts involving India-Pakistan and Serbia-Kosovo.
Speaking to reporters, he added, 'I should have gotten it four or five times… They won't give me a Nobel Peace Prize because they only give it to liberals.'
So far, only three U.S. presidents—Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Barack Obama—have received the prize.Trump's Nobel nomination is official, but wavering international support and political criticism may complicate the path ahead.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
37 minutes ago
- NDTV
Netanyahu Planned Iran Strike Months Before Bringing In Trump: Report
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had already set the country on a warpath with Iran months before his Oval Office meeting with Donald Trump, The Washington Post has reported citing Israeli and US officials. The report claims that after Israel dismantled Iran's air defences and severely weakened its proxy Hezbollah in October last year, Netanyahu issued a general order to prepare for a strike. Israeli intelligence began compiling lists of nuclear scientists and military commanders for targeted killings, while the air force launched operations to neutralise air defence systems across Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. By March this year, Israeli officials had already decided to strike Iran by June, with or without US involvement, citing concerns that Tehran would soon rebuild its air defences, sources said. This decision reportedly came weeks before Netanyahu met Trump on April 7. "It is true there was no better time: Israelis have never been more well-practised, and Iran and their proxies have never been weaker," said an Israeli official. "But that's not enough for us to operate. The reason we operated is necessity and understanding there is no alternative." The June 13 strike was not pushed by fresh intelligence suggesting an imminent Iranian breakout toward a nuclear weapon, but rather by a strategic opportunity to cripple Tehran's nuclear infrastructure while it was vulnerable. In recent interviews, Netanyahu said he made the "difficult" decision months earlier but finalised the timing just two weeks before the attack. "Those were my instructions. We're going after the scientists, take them out," Netanyahu said on Israeli TV. Israel's intelligence services spent years tracking the scientists, with Mossad running a covert campaign that involved smuggling kamikaze drones and missile launchers into Iran. The assassination campaign and airstrikes that followed are said to have killed at least 10 top scientists and damaged key elements of Iran's nuclear and missile programmes. While Israeli officials believed Iranian scientists were quietly resuming work on weaponisation, US intelligence, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, maintained that Iran's leadership had not ordered a nuclear bomb. Trump, however, dismissed that assessment, telling reporters he believed Iran was "very close" to acquiring one. While the Israeli security establishment largely backed the decision as a "preventive strike", some officials questioned the wisdom of launching an attack while diplomatic talks led by Trump's envoy were ongoing. "We should have given the political route a chance," said Danny Citrinowicz, a former senior Israeli intelligence official. "We got operational achievements, but the risks are enormous." Netanyahu has for over 30 years maintained that Iran's nuclear ambitions warrant military intervention. "All the scientists who were sneaking around," said a close adviser to Netanyahu, "most of them are now sneaking around in hell."
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
41 minutes ago
- First Post
Despite bombs, backlash: Why Iran's nuclear programme matters to it
A preliminary US intelligence report indicates Iran's nuclear programme could resume within one to two months despite weekend strikes on sites like Fordow and Natanz. Trump insists the facilities were 'obliterated', but analysts say satellite imagery cannot fully reveal underground damage. Iran's pursuit of uranium enrichment dates to 1957 and reflects its enduring quest for independence read more Members of the Iranian Parliament participate in a vote of trust for the cabinet of President Masoud Pezeshkian at the parliament in Tehran, Iran, August 21, 2024. File Image/WANA via Reuters Targeted airstrikes by the United States and Israel over the weekend aimed to neutralise Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities. While senior US officials and US President Donald Trump have declared the operation a strategic success, conflicting assessments from the American intelligence community and historical context suggest a far more nuanced picture. Did the US strikes achieve their objective? According to sources familiar with a preliminary US intelligence assessment, the American strikes on key nuclear sites in Iran — including Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — have caused damage that might delay the programme by only a few months. Three individuals with access to the classified findings indicated to Reuters that the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), which produced the initial report, assessed that Iran could resume uranium enrichment activities within as little as one to two months. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD These estimates stand in stark contrast to statements from the Trump administration. While addressing reporters at the NATO summit in The Hague, Trump acknowledged the ambiguity in the intelligence — 'The intelligence was … very inconclusive' — but asserted, 'I think we can take the 'we don't know.' It was very severe. It was obliteration.' He went further to claim, 'Iran's nuclear deal had been set back basically decades, because I don't think they'll ever do it again.' This position was echoed by White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt, who responded to reports about the assessment by stating: 'Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.' Despite these pronouncements, officials involved in the intelligence review have pointed out that the report includes several uncertainties, conditions and is expected to evolve as more data becomes available. A US official, speaking anonymously to Reuters, confirmed that even now, Washington does not fully grasp the scale of the impact on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Evaluating the destruction of highly fortified sites like Fordow, located deep underground, remains technically difficult, especially if assessments rely on satellite imagery. A satellite image shows the Fordow nuclear facility in Iran, January 24, 2025. Maxar Technologies via Reuters The DIA is also not the only agency responsible for the damage assessment. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What if Iran had a bomb? Debates about Iran's nuclear capabilities inevitably raise the question: what happens if Tehran crosses the threshold and becomes a nuclear-armed state? Analysts hold divergent views — ranging from alarm over regional instability to cautious recognition of nuclear deterrence dynamics. While fears of Iran sharing nuclear material with non-state actors or extremist groups exist, history offers limited precedent for such scenarios. According to the Arms Control Association, only one known case — the Soviet Union's transfer of uranium-235 to China in the 1950s — ever involved a state transferring bomb-grade material to another actor. More relevant is how a nuclear Iran would reshape its security calculus in West Asia. Nuclear weapons, particularly for a country like Iran, are seen less as tools of aggression and more as strategic deterrents. These weapons could serve multiple deterrence objectives: dissuading conventional military aggression from regional non-nuclear states, forestalling nuclear threats from powers like Israel, India or Pakistan, and deterring interventions by external powers such as the United States or Russia. Analysts often reference the doctrine of 'proportional deterrence,' a concept initially crafted in Cold War-era France. It proposes that a relatively less capable nuclear state can still effectively deter stronger nuclear adversaries by threatening to destroy high-value targets, even while absorbing significant damage itself. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This form of second-strike capability ensures that any country contemplating an attack must reckon with irreversible consequences. This logic, however, cuts both ways. Iran itself remains vulnerable to deterrence by Israel's nuclear arsenal, and even its missile advancements may not necessarily indicate nuclear ambitions. Some experts argue that Iran's precision missile development could be aimed at bolstering conventional deterrence — targeting strategic sites in Israel or elsewhere without resorting to nuclear arms. While a nuclear-armed Iran would not automatically destabilise the region, the psychological and political implications would be profound. The sheer perception of a shift in power dynamics could alter regional alignments, defence planning and diplomatic engagements. Most crucially, however, it is unlikely that regional or global powers will allow Iran to acquire such a capability uncontested. How did Iran's nuclear programme come about? Iran's nuclear journey began not in defiance, but under American sponsorship. In 1957, the US and Iran launched a civil nuclear partnership as part of the 'Atoms for Peace' initiative. By the 1970s, under the pro-Western Shah, Iran was planning an ambitious programme that included building 23 nuclear reactors. Washington, including then-US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, raised no objection. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Iran's nuclear development was envisioned as a symbol of modernity and a tool for regional leadership, with plans to export electricity to neighbouring states. But the Iranian Revolution of 1979 transformed the landscape entirely. The ousting of the Shah and the rise of the Islamic Republic introduced a new political order driven by anti-imperialist rhetoric and religious ideology. Western fears of weaponisation of Iran's nuclear capabilities began almost immediately. Iran's insistence on the right to enrich uranium has been a flashpoint in every round of nuclear negotiations since. To many in Washington, this insistence is incomprehensible if Iran's aims are purely peaceful. As US Vice President JD Vance remarked: 'It's one thing to want civilian nuclear energy. It's another thing to demand sophisticated enrichment capacity. And it's still another to cling to enrichment while simultaneously violating basic non-proliferation obligations and enriching right to the point of weapons-grade uranium.' Iran, however, has consistently maintained that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. It remains a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), under which it has pledged not to develop a nuclear weapon. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued multiple fatwas condemning nuclear arms as 'un-Islamic.' So why is Iran's nuclear programme so important to it? The roots of Iran's nuclear intransigence run deep — far deeper than its centrifuges. One of the revolution's founding principles, as handwritten by Ayatollah Khomeini in a 1979 declaration, was 'independence.' This idea, grounded in a long history of colonial subjugation, remains central to the Islamic Republic's identity. Iran's experience of foreign domination stretches back centuries: squeezed between Russian and British imperialism in the 19th century, subjected to the exploitation of oil resources by British corporations in the 20th, and politically undermined by direct foreign interventions. In 1953, the US and UK orchestrated a coup to remove then-Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh after he sought national control over Iran's oil. This episode is widely regarded as a defining national trauma. Author and analyst Vali Nasr, in his work Iran's Grand Strategy, traces Iran's emphasis on nuclear self-sufficiency back to this legacy of external coercion. He argues that the drive for civil nuclear power and the right to enrich uranium is not just about energy — it is about reclaiming sovereignty. 'Before the revolution itself, before the hostage crisis or US sanctions, before the Iran-Iraq war or efforts to export the revolution… the future supreme religious guide and leader of Iran valued independence from foreign influence as equal to the enshrining principles of Islam in the state,' Nasr notes. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Khamenei himself once explained the significance of the revolution by stating, 'now all decisions are made in Tehran.' This desire for autonomy — manifested in Iran's refusal to rely on imported enriched uranium from countries like Russia — has consistently obstructed nuclear agreements. Yet, from Iran's perspective, conceding on enrichment would be tantamount to surrendering the very ideals upon which the Islamic Republic was built. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
41 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump likens Iran airstrikes to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, says 'nuclear programme set back by decades'
Despite President Donald Trump's repeated assertions that US bunker-buster strikes 'completely obliterated' Iran's nuclear facilities last week, uncertainty remains over the fate of a 400 kg stockpile of uranium. read more President Donald Trump on Wednesday doubled down on his assertion that the United States had dealt a massive blow to Iran's nuclear programme through recent airstrikes, claiming that Tehran's ability to develop nuclear weapons had been pushed back by decades. Speaking at the NATO Summit in the Netherlands, Trump said the US strikes resulted in 'total obliteration' at Iran's key nuclear sites, adding that 'they're not going to be building bombs for a long time.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump also insisted that a ceasefire between Iran and Israel was holding well, and compared the outcome of the June 22 airstrikes to the decisive end of World War II, when the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 'That ended the war,' he said. 'I don't want to use the example of Hiroshima, I don't want to use the example of Nagasaki—but that was essentially the same thing.' Despite reports questioning the extent of damage inflicted on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, Trump rejected any such doubts, branding them 'fake news.' He lashed out at CNN and The New York Times for reporting that Iran's programme remained largely intact, posting in all caps on Truth Social that the nuclear sites had been 'completely destroyed.' Trump's comments were aimed at countering a CNN report based on an assessment by the Pentagon's Defence Intelligence Agency. The classified review indicated that while some Iranian nuclear sites were damaged, others remained operational or were protected before the strikes. The report also said that key equipment, such as centrifuges and uranium stockpiles, had not been fully destroyed. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed the Pentagon assessment as 'flat-out wrong' and defended the mission's success. 'When you drop fourteen 30,000-pound bombs directly on target, the result is total obliteration,' she said. What the US believes it achieved Vice President JD Vance echoed the administration's view in a Fox News interview, saying that while Iran still possesses enriched uranium—roughly 408.6 kilograms at 60% purity—it has lost the technical capacity to further enrich it to weapons-grade levels or convert it into a nuclear weapon. 'That is mission success,' Vance said. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), about 42 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% can be further processed into weapons-grade material sufficient for one nuclear bomb. The U.S. believes that by destroying infrastructure essential for that final enrichment and weaponisation, it has neutralised Iran's nuclear threat—for now. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Iran's preparations and evasive measures Ahead of the strikes, Iran took steps to protect its nuclear assets. On June 13, a day after Israel launched its own campaign against Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi informed IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi that Iran would take 'special measures' to safeguard its nuclear equipment. Satellite images from Maxar Technologies showed activity at the Fordo nuclear site starting June 19, three days before the U.S. attack. Trucks and bulldozers were seen transporting dirt, which was later used to seal entrances to underground tunnels—possibly shielding the site's contents from destruction. Stephen Wood, senior director at Maxar, said these trucks might have been involved in removing enriched uranium stockpiles or sensitive equipment before the strikes. Former U.S. intelligence analyst Eric Brewer also suggested Iran could have relocated enriched uranium or delicate centrifuges—although the latter would have been harder to transport without damage. Long-term nuclear capability not eliminated While the airstrikes appear to have dealt a blow to Iran's declared nuclear facilities, experts caution that Iran may retain enough resources to rebuild a covert programme. Over the last four years, Tehran has produced advanced centrifuges beyond the IAEA's monitoring scope. On June 12, Iran also announced the construction of a third enrichment plant in Isfahan—though it's unclear how functional it remains following Israeli and American strikes. Brewer warned that even with partial losses, Iran still has a strong foundation for rebuilding its nuclear capabilities. 'They've lost equipment and possibly personnel, but they haven't lost everything,' he said. If centrifuges were diverted in advance, Iran could, in theory, construct a small-scale, hidden enrichment site and reach weapons-grade enrichment quickly. Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Association echoed this concern. She noted that if Iran still possesses 60% enriched uranium and operational centrifuges, it could restart enrichment activities covertly and accelerate toward a nuclear weapon. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Still, any new nuclear project would now begin at a disadvantage. Experts agree that Israeli and American operations have at least temporarily weakened Iran's nuclear infrastructure—though not decisively ended the threat. With inputs from agencies
