As conflict continues in the Middle East, Donald Trump is leveraging his past diplomatic efforts and teasing future plans to position himself as the ultimate peacemaker deserving of a Nobel Prize. Citing the Abraham Accords and even suggesting he could end the war in Gaza, he is making a bold, public case for his candidacy, though experts remain deeply skeptical.
Trump’s nomination stems from the 2020 Accords, which normalized ties between Israel and several Arab nations. He has repeatedly said he “deserves” the prize for this and other actions, claiming to have “ended seven wars.” Recently, he told military leaders he could end an eighth, referring to the Israel-Hamas war, reinforcing his image as a singular force for peace in a chaotic world.
However, Nobel watchers stress that the committee evaluates not just outcomes, but also methods and long-term viability. Critics argue that Trump’s approach to the Middle East, including moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, may have secured some agreements but did little to resolve the core Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the root of much regional instability. The focus on durability is a key point raised by historian Theo Zenou.
Furthermore, Trump’s combative rhetoric and his tendency to criticize the Nobel committee itself are unlikely to win him friends in Oslo. He recently predicted the prize would go to “some guy that didn’t do a damn thing,” a statement that underscores his contempt for the institution he wants to recognize him. This kind of pressure is often counterproductive.
While Trump’s narrative of being a decisive peacemaker resonates with his supporters, it is unlikely to persuade the Nobel committee. They look for consensus-builders who work to strengthen international norms. His go-it-alone style, combined with his divisive rhetoric, makes his self-portrayal as a Nobel-worthy laureate a tough sell for the discerning committee in Norway.