No end to wars: Trump, Pakistan and the art of self-congratulation

Against this backdrop, Pakistan’s nomination seems to be motivated by strategic sycophancy, aimed at currying favour with Washington in exchange for ‘diplomatic goodwill.’  

Also Read: There we go again: Will America ever rid itself of its Pakistan delusions?

In West Asia, Trump has openly favoured Israel across multiple wars. His stance on the Gaza conflict, a war triggered by Hamas’s October 2023 incursion into Israeli territory, gruesomely killing 1,195 people and taking 251 hostages, is marked by inconsistency and opportunism. While he helped broker a three-phase ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas in January 2025, it collapsed within weeks as both sides traded accusations of violations. 

Nevertheless, Trump made no substantial effort to salvage the agreement. Instead, he oscillated between contradictory plans, endorsing Israel’s military operations, proposing the US occupation of Gaza and suggesting peace negotiations with Hamas. 

Further, Trump’s diplomacy has followed a similarly incoherent arc in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. Rather than finding a genuine long-term solution, he has repeatedly pressured Kyiv, even tying US military aid to concessions on ‘rare earths.’

Simultaneously, his approach to Iran has been equally erratic. After having withdrawn from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the Obama sponsored nuclear deal with Tehran—in 2018, Trump initiated talks earlier this year, only to undercut them by carrying out three airstrikes in Iran.

On India, Trump’s claims of a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, through late-night calls, “trade-for-peace" overtures and personal negotiations with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have been categorically denied by New Delhi.

Recently, the PM himself made it clear to Trump that India has never accepted mediation—and will never do so. This clear stance is not reactionary, but reflects India’s long-standing ‘strategic autonomy.’

India maintains robust diplomatic ties, among others, with Iran, deepening security partnerships with Israel and growing defence interoperability with the US, without allowing any single axis to influence its regional posture.

Also Read: America is making a dangerous bet by trading principles for short-term expediency in its engagement with Pakistan

Meanwhile, Trump’s distortions often find traction with actors who stand to benefit from America. In this case, for Pakistan, nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize serves as low-cost diplomatic leverage, recasting itself as ‘peace-seeking’ while remaining mired in military authoritarianism and cross-border terrorism. 

Islamabad also hopes to secure US backing on Kashmir and deepen economic and tech ties. 

In a broader perspective, the US president must learn from past episodes. 

In 2001, the US invaded Afghanistan, promising to eliminate Al Qaeda, defeat the Taliban and establish democracy in the country. Yet, two decades later, power was returned to the Taliban. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq, claiming that Baghdad harboured weapons of ‘mass destruction.’ Additionally, in 2011, it intervened in Libya, citing the need to protect civilians from their government. 

Also Read: The IMF’s Pakistan loan spotlights the case for voting power reform

Similarly, this time again, by turning Israel’s war into America’s war, Trump raised danger levels in West Asia. 

Importantly, the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded “for the greatest benefit to humankind," has been awarded to US presidents since Theodore Roosevelt (1906). Awards given to Woodrow Wilson (1920) for the League of Nations, Jimmy Carter (2002) for human rights and Al Gore (2007) for climate action were consistent in recognizing a commitment to institutional architectures, multilateral cooperation and universal values. Even Barack Obama’s 2009 award, widely seen as aspirational, was granted less than a year into his presidency amid ongoing conflicts. He himself humbly acknowledged that he might not have deserved it. Yet, this award has long reflected a clearly stated vision and commitment to international diplomacy and ‘global collaboration.’ In essence, it recognized efforts to build bridges. In contrast, Trump’s pursuits starkly deviate from that end.  

President Trump’s departure from multilateralism is not incidental. It signifies a deliberate shift away from both global and domestic institutionalism. His administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the WHO and the UN Human Rights Council; exit from arms control treaties like the INF and Open Skies Agreements; defunding of UNRWA; and departure from Unesco all demonstrate a clear disregard for an ‘international consensus.’ 

The Trump administration’s actions have frequently been unilateral and without credible alternatives. Domestically, policies such as protectionist tariffs, aimed at shielding US industries, may ultimately raise consumer costs, strain American businesses and disrupt global trade flows.

Also Read: Pakistan’s economy must escape the clutches of its armed forces

Now, as Pakistan has shifted from nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize to condemning US strikes on Iran, it has invited international ridicule, exposing the contradictions and shallow opportunism of its ‘foreign policy’ playbook. 

The episode underscores how performative diplomacy, rooted in a ‘transactional calculus’ rather than strategic coherence, can quickly collapse under the weight of real-world events. It is a sharp example of how easily performance is mistaken for policy.

As the world’s most powerful nation’s leader, Trump is uniquely positioned to shape the architecture of peace, not perform it. If he truly alters the global trajectory, the recognition he seeks will follow, as it always has—for substance, not show.

The authors are, respectively, a lawyer, former Member of Parliament and civil servant (@Amar4Odisha), and a lawyer based in New Delhi.