This January, Trump told Norway’s prime minister he no longer needed to think “purely of peace” after failing to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Is the same attitude being reflected in attacking Iran?
After capturing Venezuelan President Maduro, the world undoubtedly understands that Trump is capable of doing anything. And besides Greenland, places like Canada, the Panama Canal, Cuba, and Mexico still exist on the world map. So, could awarding a Nobel Peace Prize serve as a strategic move to limit Trump’s actions?
Trump’s eagerness to get the Nobel Prize – perhaps to match his legacy with Obama’s – is never a secret. Yes, Obama’s nomination – after only a few days of becoming president – was highly criticised, as his achievement for “peace” was unclear. Obama himself put some distance between himself and the award, saying he viewed it “a recognition of the role of American leadership” in the world and vowed to accept it “as a call to action.”
Strategic lever
The Nobel Peace Prize is often awarded not solely for the final, absolute achievement of peace but rather has frequently been utilised as a strategic lever – to offer encouragement, frequently acting as a “nudge” to persevere in challenging circumstances; to exert pressure; and even to take a gamble on the future.
Take some examples. Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1978 following the Camp David Accords, yet prior to a comprehensive resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Nobel Committee explicitly framed this as an endeavour to reinforce a fragile peace process.
When Lech Wałęsa was awarded the Nobel in 1983, Poland remained under military rule, and the Solidarity movement had been suppressed. Thus, the award served as a signal of international support for a desired democratic future.
Aung San Suu Kyi was awarded in 1991 while she was under house arrest and no democratic transition had yet been achieved in Myanmar. Consequently, it served as a symbolic and forward-looking award.
When Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk were awarded the Nobel in 1993, apartheid had indeed been officially dismantled; however, South Africa’s transition remained highly precarious. Thus, the clear objective was to encourage the continuation of negotiations and to deter the disruptors.
Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Yasser Arafat were awarded it in 1994 – during the Oslo peace process, rather than after a final settlement. The award was, therefore, viewed as an effort to bring various parties together at the negotiating table and to bolster the moderate leaders on all sides.
In 2000, Kim Dae-jung was honoured for his “Sunshine Policy” toward North Korea – a policy that, at the time, remained largely aspirational.
Juan Manuel Santos was awarded in 2016, shortly after the Colombian public had narrowly rejected – via a referendum – a peace accord with the guerrilla organisation FARC. The Nobel Committee explicitly stated that it was bestowed to encourage the continuation of the peace process.
Prospects for peace
Thus, it’s evident that the Nobel Committee often seems to believe that by empowering an individual through an award “now” – rather than waiting – the prospects for future peace are significantly enhanced. Consequently, ceasefires are frequently recognised – even before the war has ended. Similarly, moderate forces are often honoured before extremists have the chance to regain their strength.
Some of these endeavours do indeed meet with success – such as the award conferred upon Mandela and de Klerk. It’s frequently cited as a prime example of a visionary award fulfilling its intended purpose. The award given to Begin and Sadat also proved quite successful; the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty remains one of the most enduring agreements in that region. The award to Santos also proved remarkably effective. Santos pressed ahead, and a revised treaty was subsequently ratified.
The outcomes of some forward-looking prizes have been mixed or ambiguous, though. While the “Sunshine Policy” failed to transform North Korea, it did temporarily de-escalate tensions and pave the way for new avenues of engagement. The outcome of Obama’s award also remains a subject of debate; supporters claim it bolstered diplomatic efforts and facilitated leadership on issues like the Iran nuclear deal and climate change, while critics argue it proved he was a darling of the international elite.
Certain peace initiatives – such as awarding Arafat or Suu Kyi – have clearly ended in failure. When the Oslo Accords collapsed and violence erupted, critics argued that, in the absence of adequate transformation, this award lent legitimacy to someone like Arafat.
Thus, overall, in today’s turbulent world, awarding Trump a Nobel Prize might not be a bad “bet” for peace. Although there’s no guarantee that such an endeavour would actually succeed.
The writer is Professor of Statistics, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata
Published on April 4, 2026