Nobel Peace Prize, Who Should Get It?
Segment #564
Trump
Since taking office for a second term, the Trump administration has claimed credit for brokering several peace deals and cease fires. A White House press secretary stated that the president has helped end conflicts between Thailand and Cambodia, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and has been involved in de-escalating tensions between India and Pakistan. The administration has also been engaged in diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas conflict and is pushing for a resolution to the war between Russia and Ukraine.
To be fair Trump has certainly made an effort to end wars around the world. Some efforts have been successful, some are ongoing, some may have been the result of local diplomatic efforts. But Trump has only been in office for six months. To compare his successes with Obama’s aspirations as America’s first black president, is to the core dishonest and certainly politically motivated.
Obama
Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, less than nine months into his first term as president. He was inaugurated on January 20, 2009, and the prize was announced on October 9, 2009. It certainly appears that this award was made more for Obama’s aspirations than his actual contributions. History confirms that Obama was largely, through his policies of nearly giving Iran a nuclear capability responsible de-stabilizing the Middle East potentially resulting in war.
The Nobel Committee awarded him the prize for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." They specifically cited his vision and work for a world without nuclear weapons, his creation of a new climate in international politics that prioritized multilateral diplomacy and the role of the United Nations, and his emphasis on dialogue and negotiations as a way to resolve difficult conflicts. The committee also noted his outreach to the Muslim world and his initiatives on climate change.
Iran
The argument that believing Iran was and is being truthful about its nuclear program is a dangerous and foolish policy supported by a historical pattern of deception and non-compliance. This is a central point of criticism for those who opposed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and its premise of trusting Iran's commitments.
Here's a breakdown of the historical evidence that fuels this perspective:
History of Clandestine Nuclear Activities: Prior to the JCPOA, it was revealed that Iran had been running a secret nuclear program for years, which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the international community were unaware of. The existence of clandestine facilities, such as the Natanz and Fordow enrichment plants, was a clear violation of Iran's obligations under its safeguards agreement with the IAEA and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The discovery of these sites, often through intelligence from third parties, demonstrated that Iran's declarations could not be taken at face value.
The "Possible Military Dimensions" (PMD) File: For years, the IAEA investigated what it called the "possible military dimensions" of Iran's nuclear program. This inquiry, which was only resolved as a condition of the JCPOA, was based on credible evidence that Iran had engaged in a coordinated effort to develop a nuclear explosive device before 2003, with some related activities continuing after that. The fact that Iran had a structured, secret program to develop a weapon, and then obfuscated and denied it for years, is a key piece of evidence for those who argue that a policy based on trust is untenable.
Undeclared Nuclear Material and Locations: Even during the JCPOA, questions lingered about past undeclared nuclear materials and activities. More recently, the IAEA has found traces of uranium at several undeclared sites. Iran has failed to provide "technically credible explanations" for the presence of this material, leading the IAEA to repeatedly state that it cannot provide assurances that Iran's nuclear program is "exclusively peaceful." This ongoing lack of cooperation, even after the JCPOA, reinforces the long-held suspicion that Iran has a history of concealing parts of its nuclear program.
"Breakout" vs. "Sneak-out": A core concern of critics was that the JCPOA, while making a "breakout" (a dash to a bomb from declared facilities) more difficult, did not adequately address the possibility of a "sneak-out" (a covert effort to build a bomb at an undeclared site). The discovery of new undeclared sites and the lack of full transparency about past activities suggest that the "sneak-out" risk was always present and not fully eliminated by the deal's inspection regime.
Actions After the U.S. Withdrawal: The most recent history, post-2018, is often cited as the ultimate proof of this dangerous policy. After the U.S. withdrew from the JCPOA, Iran began to systematically violate its terms. Iran is now enriching uranium to 60%, a level far beyond any civilian need and a short technical step away from weapons-grade. It has also greatly expanded its stockpile and deployed advanced centrifuges. Critics of the JCPOA see this as a predictable outcome, arguing that Iran was never truly committed to the deal's spirit, but was merely biding its time.
In this view, the JCPOA was not a policy of success but a high-stakes gamble on a regime with a demonstrated track record of deceit. The current situation, where Iran is closer than ever to a nuclear weapon and has limited IAEA access, is considered by these critics to be the inevitable and dangerous consequence of a policy that underestimated Iran's strategic deception.
Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but the left will never admit it
by Douglas MacKinnon, opinion contributor - 07/26/25 12:00 PM ET
Over the last three decades or longer, the Nobel Prize Committee has become for many the poster child for a “woke,” in-the-tank for the left organization. Especially when it comes to the Peace Prize.
On the surface, there is nothing wrong with that, if the committee members admit that they have morphed into a propaganda arm for the far left and its causes. But they won’t. Instead, they — like the Pulitzer Prize Committee — proclaim their nonpartisanship while actively discriminating against conservatives or those they perceive to be on the right.
In 2015, one of its members, Geir Lundestad — possibly suffering a pang of guilt — had the good grace to admit to a mistake. That mistake being the laughable and sycophantic decision to award President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for literally doing nothing.
Obama had been in office for less than nine months when he got the award. Liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called it “premature.” Obama himself felt so self-conscious about getting the award that he gave serious thought to skipping the ceremony.
Years later, while giving that 2015 interview, Lundestad said, “Even many of Obama’s supporters believed that the prize was a mistake. In that sense, the committee didn’t achieve what it had hoped for.”
Well, the committee did achieve what it set out to do, which was to fawn over a far-left president by giving him an award he never earned. It just didn’t anticipate the immense blowback and ridicule.