Twelve days, a few hundred Iranian missile silos reduced to dust, and a Middle Eastern ceasefire—welcome to modern peacekeeping, Trump style. Forget Geneva conventions and UN diplomacy. Who needs shuttle talks and backchannel negotiations when you have B-52s and “fire and fury”?
Donald J. Trump, the man who once threatened North Korea with “total destruction,” is now patting himself on the back for delivering peace in the Iran-Israel conflict. Not through negotiations, mind you, but by joining hands with Benjamin Netanyahu and unleashing a clinical barrage of bombs on Iran’s nuclear facilities, airbases, and missile launchers. The result? Iran blinked.
Trump now claims his bombing campaign forced Iran to the table, as if diplomacy begins only after destruction. He says the Middle East might finally see “long-lasting peace”—never mind that we’ve heard that line every time someone flattens a city or two in the region.
And now, in what can only be described as a golden opportunity for the Nobel Peace Prize committee to further tarnish its own credibility, Trump’s loyal base is whispering—nay, shouting—that the man deserves that shiny medallion. After all, wasn’t Obama awarded the Peace Prize for lofty speeches and drone strikes? Compared to that, Trump actually achieved something—he started a war and ended it in under two weeks.
Of course, Iran didn’t “agree” to a ceasefire out of goodwill. They simply don’t have much left to fight with. Their air-defense systems were shredded. Missile launch pads flattened. Nuclear sites vaporized. At this point, Tehran’s bold statements sound like a man flexing after both his arms have been broken. For all practical purposes, the war is over. The only real decision left for Iran is whether to issue one more defiant press release or to commission a new underground bunker network.
But let’s not ignore the economics. War, after all, is expensive. Ask Russia, still bleeding in Ukraine. Or the ghosts of Vietnam. Or Iraq, which discovered “shock and awe” often ends in economic rubble and social chaos. Iran simply couldn’t afford a long war, especially when the US military-industrial complex is running on overdrive and Netanyahu’s Israel is more than happy to keep the fire burning.
Now here comes the comic relief: Pakistan’s all-powerful General Asim Munir—sorry, Field Marshal Munir—claims credit too! Apparently, he “stood by Trump,” joined the war-ending dinner diplomacy (chicken biryani, we hope), and offered moral support in Washington’s righteous quest. Given his contribution to regional peace from thousands of miles away, one wonders if the Nobel Committee should consider a joint award—Trump and Munir, the new peacemaking duo of our times.
The irony is glorious. In today’s world, bombing a nation back into the Stone Age and then demanding a peace prize has somehow become a legitimate foreign policy strategy. And if the Nobel Peace Prize committee is still following its baffling post-2009 logic—remember Obama’s prize for “potential”—then Trump’s got a real shot. After all, he ended a war (that he helped escalate), which is more than what most laureates can say.
But before we get carried away by this pageantry of posturing and self-congratulations, let’s remember one truth: wars that end this easily were never about justice or values—they were about leverage, optics, and power. Iran, isolated and gutted, didn’t sue for peace; it was shoved into it. Trump didn’t negotiate peace; he detonated the path to it.
So, should Trump win the Nobel? Maybe. In a world where sarcasm is diplomacy and brute force is virtue, why not hand him the medal and inscribe it: “Peace through Precision Bombing.”
Because nothing says world peace like a mushroom cloud on the horizon and a man with a trophy saying, “You’re welcome.”
