Politics
No peace: Trump’s smoldering Nobel obsession

Donald Trump has made no secret of the fact that he is obsessed with winning the Nobel Peace Prize. But so far the award has eluded him throughout his two US presidencies.
Trump’s push for the prize, whose 2025 winner will be named on Friday, is fueled by a potent mix of a desire for prestige and a long rivalry with former president Barack Obama.
Sometimes Trump, who is often better known for his divisive rhetoric, anti-migration drive and embrace of foreign authoritarians, has appeared to acknowledge that he is an unlikely candidate.
“Will you get the Nobel Prize? Absolutely not. They’ll give it to some guy that didn’t do a damn thing,” Trump said during a speech to hundreds of the US military’s top officers in September.
But in the same breath Trump revealed his true feelings.
“It’d be a big insult to our country, I will tell you that. I don’t want it, I want the country to get it. It should get it because there’s never been anything like it,” he said at the same gathering.
‘Seven wars’
As the Norwegian committee’s announcement has drawn nearer, the steady drumbeat of Trump’s campaigning for the peace prize has intensified to unprecedented levels.
In recent weeks, barely a public event has gone by without Trump bragging about what he says is his role in ending seven wars.
Trump’s administration recently listed them as being between Cambodia and Thailand; Kosovo and Serbia; the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda; Pakistan and India; Israel and Iran; Egypt and Ethiopia; and Armenia and Azerbaijan.
But while Trump has been quick to claim credit for some — for example announcing a ceasefire between nuclear-armed Delhi and Islamabad in May — many of the claims are partial or inaccurate.
Trump has even bombed one of the countries he mentions. He ordered US military strikes on Iran’s nuclear program in June.
But perhaps the biggest issue is that the two main wars that Trump promised to end within days of his inauguration — in Gaza and Ukraine — are still raging.
His push for a deal between US ally Israel and Hamas to end the brutal two-year war in Gaza has reached a climax just days before the Nobel announcement — but is almost certainly too late to sway the committee.
Foreign leaders seeking to curry favor with Trump have been quick to talk up Trump’s chances.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nominated Trump for the prize, as did an Israeli advocacy group campaigning for the release of hostages in Gaza.
Pakistan also nominated Trump while the leaders of several African countries paid tribute to his supposed peacemaking efforts in a visit earlier this year.
Obama rivalry
But while Trump wants international recognition as “peacemaker-in-chief,” there is another driving factor.
Since the beginning of his presidential ambitions 10 years ago, “he has put himself in opposition to Barack Obama, who famously won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009,” Garret Martin, a professor of international relations at American University, told AFP.
The prize awarded to the Democratic former president, barely nine months after he took office, sparked heated debate — and continues to annoy Republican Trump.
“If I were named Obama I would have had the Nobel Prize given to me in 10 seconds,” Trump complained in October 2024, during the final stretch of the presidential campaign.
Three other US presidents have also won the award: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter, although Carter won his decades after his presidency for his subsequent peace efforts.
Politics
Netanyahu says he was successfully treated for prostate cancer

- Netanyahu does not disclose when treatment occurred.
- Delayed release of medical report by two months: Israeli PM.
- Move aimed at preventing Iran from spreading “propaganda”.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday said that he had received successful treatment for early-stage prostate cancer, without specifying when the treatment took place.
In a statement on social media, as his annual medical report was released, Netanyahu, 76, said an early stage malignant tumor had been discovered during a routine checkup. He said “targeted treatment” had removed “the problem” and left no trace of it.
According to the medical report, which otherwise said the prime minister was in good health, Netanyahu was treated with radiation therapy for early-stage prostate cancer.
Neither the medical report nor Netanyahu said when the treatment occurred.
Israel’s longest-serving prime minister said that he had delayed the release of the medical report by two months to prevent Iran from spreading “false propaganda against Israel”.
In March, during the fighting with Iran, rumors that circulated on social media and aired on Iranian state media claimed that Netanyahu had died.
The Israeli leader recorded a video of himself visiting a Jerusalem cafe in March to refute the claims.
Netanyahu underwent surgery on his prostate in 2024 after he was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection resulting from a benign prostate enlargement. In 2023, he was fitted with a pacemaker. Elections are due to be held in Israel by October.
Politics
Strategic Assertion or Legal Breach? Deconstructing India’s Indus Waters Doctrine

India’s unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty under the pretext of security concerns constitutes a flagrant violation of international law , devoid of any legal basis within the Treaty framework. By invoking unsubstantiated claims surrounding the Pahalgam incident , India advances a dangerous doctrine that legitimizes treaty erosion and the coercive weaponisation of shared resources.
The Indus Waters Treaty is a binding bilateral instrument that contains no provision permitting unilateral suspension , reinterpretation, or conditional compliance, thereby rendering India’s decision to hold it in abeyance legally untenable and inconsistent with the principle of pacta sunt servanda. The attempt to justify this breach through allegations linked to the Pahalgam incident remains entirely unsubstantiated in international fora, exposing the claim as a politically motivated pretext rather than a lawful justification. By conflating disputed security narratives with treaty obligations, India not only undermines the integrity of a long-standing water-sharing regime but also sets a pernicious precedent that threatens the stability of transboundary agreements and the broader rules-based international order.
India’s unilateral move to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance is not a policy shift, it is a shameless act of legal defiance , openly violating the most basic rule of international law; pacta sunt servanda.
The weaponization of a water-sharing treaty exposes the dangerous ideological imprint of the RSS mindset , where majoritarian extremism overrides legal commitments India’s attempt to justify its conduct through the Pahalgam incident collapses under scrutiny even after a year; no evidence, no accountability, no credibility, only a politically convenient narrative weaponized to rationalize treaty violations.
Dragging terrorism allegations into a binding water treaty is not strategy, it is blatant and reckless escalation , dismantling decades of carefully insulated cooperation and replacing it with instability and mistrust.
By sidestepping proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, India has revealed a pattern of selective legality , embracing international law when convenient and abandoning it when constrained. Moreover, India yet remains silent to the UN Special Rapporteurs queries even after 130 days.
The weaponisation of water by an upper riparian state is nothing short of hydro-political terrorism , targeting the economic and agricultural lifeline of millions and crossing the line from governance into coercion.
This conduct represents a shameful erosion of treaty sanctity , sending a chilling message to the world that binding agreements can be hollowed out by power politics and ideological rigidity.
Pakistan’s position remains unequivocal; treaties are not conditional favors but binding obligations, and no state has the authority to unilaterally rewrite or suspend them under the guise of security narratives.
The growing international concern surrounding India’s actions underscores a simple reality: Unilateralism is isolating, destabilizing, and fundamentally incompatible with a rules-based order.
At its core, this doctrine of “blood and water cannot flow together” is not a principle of justice, it is a dangerous precedent, legitimizing collective punishment and transforming a historic instrument of peace into a tool of strategic pressure.
Politics
India rebukes Trump for sharing ‘hellhole’ remarks on birthright citizenship

- Trump shares commentary on birthright citizenship on his social media.
- Conservative talk show host called China, India ‘hellhole’ places.
- India says inappropriate comments do not reflect reality of India-US ties.
India has dismissed as “uninformed” comments shared by US President Donald Trump that described the country as a “hellhole”, saying they were inappropriate and inconsistent with the strong relationship between the two countries.
The comments were made by conservative commentator Michael Savage in an episode of The Savage Nation talk radio show. Trump posted a transcript of the show on his Truth Social account on Thursday without any comments.
“A baby here becomes an instant citizen, and then they bring the entire family in from China or India or some other hellhole on the planet,” Savage said, according to the transcript.
“That there’s almost no loyalty to this country amongst the immigrant class coming in today, which was not always the case. No, they’re not like the European Americans of today and their ancestors.”
Reuters could not immediately contact Savage.
Trump has issued a directive seeking to restrict birthright citizenship in the United States, a move that has been challenged in the US Supreme Court. Earlier this month, he attended a hearing on the issue in a historic visit to the court.
India’s foreign ministry late on Thursday reacted strongly to the comments.
“The remarks are obviously uninformed, inappropriate and in poor taste,” Indian foreign ministry spokesperson, Randhir Jaiswal, said in a statement.
“They certainly do not reflect the reality of the India-US relationship, which has long been based on mutual respect and shared interests.”
The US embassy in New Delhi said: “The president has said ‘India is a great country with a very good friend of mine at the top’.”
China’s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
India’s main opposition Congress party called the “hellhole” remark “extremely insulting and anti-India. It hurts every Indian”.
“Prime Minister Narendra Modi should take up this matter with the US President and register a strong objection,” the party said on X.
Indian government data shows nearly 5.5 million people of Indian origin live in the United States. Indian Americans and Chinese Americans are the two biggest groups of Asian origin in the US.
Trump and Modi enjoyed warm ties during Trump’s first term, but relations cooled after India was hit last year with some of the highest US tariffs, many of which were rolled back this year. India and the US are now working on a trade deal aimed at preventing any renewed increase in tariffs and boosting sales to each other.
-
Fashion1 week agoFrance’s LVMH Q1 revenue falls 6%, shows resilience amid Iran war
-
Tech1 week agoCYBERUK ’26: UK lagging on legal protections for cyber pros | Computer Weekly
-
Sports5 days agoWWE WrestleMania 42 Night 2: Live match results and analysis
-
Business1 week agoPepsiCo earnings beat estimates as North American food business improves
-
Sports5 days agoNCAA men’s gymnastics championship: All-time winners list
-
Tech1 week agoCyber Essentials closes the MFA loophole but leaves some organisations adrift | Computer Weekly
-
Business1 week agoOil prices fall again amid Middle East ceasefire hopes
-
Sports1 week agoFaheem Ashraf backs Islamabad United’s push, calls league a ‘career-changing platform’
