Trump, after missing the peace prize, sets his sights on a war‑focused Nobel prize | John Crace

Perhaps the episode should have ended in December. Rather than issuing a courteous objection, each Western nation could have dispatched an official delegation to Norway, urging the Nobel Committee to grant Donald Trump the peace prize. Collectively we might have contributed billions to increase the prize’s appeal.

If that had not sufficed, we might have persuaded FIFA president Gianni Infantino to rename his “Peaceiest Ever President” accolade to a more provocative title, and to commission a solid‑gold statue of Trump. The organization’s discretionary funds could have covered such a gesture.

In reality, after Trump was passed over for the Nobel peace prize, the president appears to have abandoned his stated peace agenda. He now seems intent on securing a Nobel for military action. Following the seizure of the Venezuelan leader, Trump ordered air strikes on Iran on Saturday.

Commentator Pete Hegseth noted that Iran has been engaged in a 47‑year unilateral conflict with the United States, a fact Trump apparently highlighted for the first time. He could have listed this among the eight conflicts he claims to have concluded.

Thus the situation repeats: a Middle‑Eastern conflict driven by a vague strategy of damage and regime change. While no one mourns Ayatollah Khamenei, his death leaves no clear heir. History shows that regime change cannot be accomplished solely through bombing, and Trump has acknowledged that his actions have also eliminated his secondary and tertiary successors.

No democratic, US‑aligned cadre stands ready to assume those roles, suggesting years of instability and sectarian violence ahead. Regarding American participation, it is likely to cease when Trump loses interest, leaving the resolution to others.

The whole episode has proved a nightmare for Keir Starmer. Sympathy for the prime minister is natural; even when he reaches a sensible decision, he appears to lose support from all quarters.

On Saturday, Starmer declined to align with US and Israeli strikes. The following day, after an Iranian assault on a Cypriot airbase, he announced that Britain would permit US forces to operate from UK bases for defensive missions targeting Iranian missile sites.

The move seemed unlike Starmer’s typical abrupt reversals—a measured reaction to a shifting scenario. Nevertheless, some MPs on both sides portrayed it as betrayal, accusing him of abandoning the nation and himself.

Starmer steadied himself before delivering his Commons remarks on Iran. The preceding week had been chaotic, and he was exhausted.