OAN Commentary by: Adonis Hoffman
Wednesday, June 25, 2025
Yasser Arafat. Nelson Mandela. Martin Luther King, Jr. Jimmy Carter. Henry Kissinger. Menachem Begin. Anwar Sadat. Barack Obama.
All of whom received the vaunted Nobel Prize for Peace. Some with celebration, others with controversy.
Should Donald Trump be next?
Agree or disagree with him –like him or not — Donald Trump has done more than enough to solidify his place in the pantheon of Nobel Peace Prize winners. Even the most polarizing awardees have contributed in unique ways to the mission, and President Trump has contributed as much, if not more, than any other world leader. Some would say it is only fitting in that he mirrors the founder of the Prize perhaps as closely as anyone else.
Alfred B. Nobel was a Swedish industrialist and inventor who held over 350 patents, most famously dynamite, an invention which ushered in a new dimension of warfare. He became wealthy as a result.
Nobel’s obituary, printed in error by a French newspaper at the death of his brother, said Alfred Nobel “became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before,” Motivated by this mistake, Nobel decided that his legacy would be one of peace, not war.
Thus the establishment of the Nobel Peace Prize, which heralds, “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
Arguably, this aptly describes the efforts of President Trump in several instances. While his brand of peace is realpolitik at its most basic level, it is nonetheless effective. Often raw, irreverent and ramshackle, Trump cares not about ruffled feathers.
On June 23, 2025, the President heralded a “complete and total” 12-hour cease fire between Israel and Iran. Should it hold, this could decidedly lead to the end of the 12-day war, thanks in no small measure to the impact of direct U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.
That Trump orchestrated a sequential pause of hostilities with Iran first, then Israel, reflects a a level of foreign policy orchestration heretofore unseen. America’s direct intervention stemmed a spiral that threatened regional catastrophe and a global oil crisis.
The predicates for the truce have evolved over time but can mostly be attributed to the shift in Middle Eastern alliances nurtured by Trump during his first and current administrations. While some made light of his recent swing through Saudi Arabia, solidifying the U.S. -Saudi relationship was essential in allaying any possible Arab opposition which could have complicated matters on a global scale.
The President’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, coupled with the historic Abraham Accords normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations and fundamentally reshaped regional dynamics. This created a new geopolitical calculus, prompting the regional neighbors to reconsider old enmities and explore new alignments.
Trump’s strategic moves have proven more than smart over time. They have fostered an environment where Iran has few options but to de-escalate. While uneasy, this could be a peace born not from traditional rapprochement, but from a rebalancing of power prompted and accelerated by Trump policies.
Trump’s critics have decried the direct military action without Congressional notice or authorization. And conventional procedure suggests that peace is forged through diplomatic whispers, multilateral consensus, and adherence to established norms.
And then there is the President’s preferred path.
Trump’s foreign policy is fairly characterized by transparent transactionalism, raw reciprocity, and a readiness to shock the status quo. But it is precisely this disruption that, paradoxically, has laid groundwork for peace in ways traditional approaches could not.
Alfred Nobel’s own legacy was forged by the tension between danger and diplomacy. He understood that human endeavor is full of contradictions, and that progress can spring from the most unexpected sources.
In a world desperate for peace, perhaps it is time the Nobel Committee recognized that disruption, too, can be a surprising, albeit paradoxical, path to peace.
To suggest that Donald Trump should receive the Nobel Peace Prize is not to endorse every aspect of his presidency, nor to ignore the controversies that surrounded his foreign policy.
Rather, it is to acknowledge the inconvenient truth that on rare occasions, the most profound path to peace comes not from delicate diplomacy but from the derring-do of someone willing to challenge the status quo.
(Views expressed by guest commentators may not reflect the views of OAN or its affiliates.)
Adonis Hoffman served in senior legal roles in the U.S. House of Representatives and at the FCC. He writes on business, law and policy.