Ghulam Haider Shaikh
Donald Trump emerged on the global political stage with bold claims of bringing an end to endless wars and restoring America’s greatness through diplomacy.
His 2016 campaign resonated with promises to withdraw U.S. troops from foreign lands and rebuild domestic priorities. However, his actions as President painted a starkly different picture. Rather than diffusing conflicts, he ignited new flames—especially in the Middle East—exposing his dual nature and underlying ideological biases.
The recent U.S. strike on Iranian installations is not just a military maneuver; it is a declaration of ideological warfare. It reveals an aggressive mindset rooted in religious and geopolitical prejudice. Far from being a peace-seeker, Trump proved to be a calculated disruptor. His unflinching support for Israel, his recognition of Jerusalem as its capital, and his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal all point toward a pattern: dismantling any equilibrium in the Muslim world that does not serve American or Israeli interests.
What adds another layer of irony and disillusionment is Pakistan’s move to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. At a time when the global community was reeling from Trump’s divisive policies and military aggressions, Pakistan, a country that has itself borne the brunt of war and extremism, lauded him as a peace champion. This disjointed decision reveals a deep flaw in our foreign policy. It reflects a failure to align our national stances with the sentiments of our people and the principles on which our country was founded.
The contradiction in Trump’s persona is glaring. On one hand, he claimed to bring U.S. troops home from Afghanistan and open dialogue with the Taliban. On the other, he unleashed sanctions, threats, and military interventions against Iran, Syria, and even pressurized nuclear-armed nations like North Korea. This is not a foreign policy of peace—it is a strategy of selective peace, applied only where it suits American geopolitical interests. Such duplicity is not just hypocritical—it is dangerous.
The attack on Iran is a blatant violation of sovereignty. Yet, global institutions like the United Nations remain passive, shackled by the dominance of major powers. Where is the outrage when international laws are bent to accommodate U.S. interests? Why is military aggression celebrated under the guise of “national security” when perpetrated by the West? This selective morality has eroded the credibility of global order.
Pakistan’s endorsement of Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, in this context, becomes even more problematic. Is this symbolic support merely an attempt to curry favor with Washington for economic or diplomatic gains? If so, it marks a profound betrayal of principle. A self-respecting nation must never compromise its moral compass for transient benefits. As Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, envisioned—a sovereign state built upon justice and integrity should never bow to opportunism.
Instead of glorifying leaders who peddle chaos and division, Pakistan must stand with the oppressed. Whether it is Palestine, Yemen, Afghanistan, or now Iran—our voice should echo with the cries of those who suffer under imperial violence. Supporting a man like Trump—who vilified Muslims, enacted travel bans against them, and emboldened Islamophobia—betrays not just political wisdom, but our ideological soul.
The disconnect between the Pakistani state and its people becomes glaring here. While citizens across Pakistan, like much of the Muslim world, protested Trump’s policies, officialdom chose appeasement. This disparity weakens our diplomatic position and invites scorn rather than respect. We cannot claim leadership of the Muslim world while submitting to those who orchestrate its suffering.
Middle Eastern nations have suffered the most under Trump’s administration. From the bombed streets of Syria, the starving children of Yemen, the besieged Palestinians, to the now-threatened Iranians—Trump’s name invokes fear and disdain. For these communities, to see a Muslim-majority country like Pakistan endorse him as a peace ambassador is a profound insult.
This is not just about Trump. It is about a broader issue of global hypocrisy. When violence is committed by a powerful state, it is labeled “defense.” When weaker nations retaliate, they are called “terrorists.” If the world continues to tolerate such contradictions, international law will be rendered meaningless. Institutions like the UN, the Nobel Committee, and even the International Criminal Court risk becoming tools of power rather than agents of justice.
It is imperative now more than ever that the Muslim world wakes up to these realities. We must reject the double standards and develop a united voice against tyranny, no matter where it comes from. If we fail to draw a principled line today, we will find ourselves further marginalized, manipulated, and weakened tomorrow.
Trump’s tenure should serve as a warning, not a model. It revealed how quickly populist rhetoric can turn into militaristic policy. It showed how fragile the veneer of diplomacy is when tainted by religious bigotry and corporate greed. And most importantly, it exposed how complicit the world can become when moral clarity is replaced by strategic convenience.
In conclusion, Pakistan—and other nations that seek dignity and peace—must reassess their alliances and recognitions. To call a warmonger a peacemaker is not just naïve; it is dangerous. It sends the wrong message to the world—that might is right, and truth is irrelevant. We owe it to the future generations to resist this narrative, to stand for truth even if it means standing alone.
If we continue to endorse such contradictions, we will inch closer to the brink—not just of war, but of a complete moral collapse. The choice is ours: complicity or conscience.
