The recent developments in the Middle East make one thing absolutely clear: president Donald Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. This is the logical conclusion if we look at what the prize is supposed to reward: concrete peace achievements that save lives.
After two years of unbearable suffering, the hostages who had been held in Gaza since the horrific Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, are finally being released. Of the 250 people kidnapped at the time, the 20 survivors are now being freed, along with the remains of 28 others who were killed. This is the direct result of Trump’s determined diplomatic pressure.
The ceasefire also means relief for more than two million Palestinians in Gaza, who have endured daily bombings, mass displacement, and widespread famine. With more than 67,000 Palestinian victims according to local health authorities, the humanitarian catastrophe is immense. Trump deserves credit for his persistence in bringing this disaster to an end.
Peace based on actions
If there is one lesson we should learn from the history of the Nobel Peace Prize, it is this: the prize should be awarded for concrete results, not for lofty promises. The Obama debacle of 2009 is the perfect example. Barack Obama received the prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy”—even before he had achieved any measurable peace results as president.
The reaction was devastating, and rightly so. Even the former director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute publicly admitted in 2015 that he regretted awarding the prize to Obama. The committee had been seduced by eloquent rhetoric and the symbolism of America’s first black president, instead of waiting for tangible peace achievements. This mistake permanently damaged the credibility of the Nobel Prize. Now we have a president who is doing exactly what the Nobel Prize should reward: ending wars, freeing hostages, and saving lives. The fact that Trump has not received the prize is unjustified.
Peace achievements of president Trump
During his first term, Trump brokered the Abraham Accords, through which the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan normalized relations with Israel. For the first time in decades, concrete peace agreements were signed between Arab nations and Israel. Critics claim these accords were “largely transactional.” In my view, that is not an objection. The accords worked—they brought diplomatic recognition, economic cooperation, and peace where there had been hostility.
Now, in his second term, Trump has achieved what others could not or would not. He applied effective pressure on both Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas. Compare this with Obama in 2009: no wars ended, no hostages freed, no concrete peace agreements. Obama received the prize for potential and hope; Trump is ignored despite proven, measurable results. If that is not a double standard, what is?
Pragmatism that works
Trump’s success stems from his pragmatic approach to international conflicts. Where traditional diplomats get lost in endless discussions about ethical principles and procedural correctness, Trump focuses on results. He negotiates toughly, uses economic leverage without hesitation, and forces parties to come to the table. Academics and diplomats may dislike it, but it works.
In the Middle East, this meant he was able to move both Israel and Hamas toward an agreement, with crucial support from Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey. Without American pressure—and specifically Trump’s willingness to apply that pressure without scruples—this ceasefire would never have happened. His pragmatic approach extends to other conflict zones as well. Trump is seeking, one way or another, to bring peace to Ukraine. Here too, the strength lies in his willingness to use unconventional means to achieve concrete results.
The peace dividend
Peace leads to a significant reduction in geopolitical risk. The peace initiative in Gaza is part of a broader pattern: neutralizing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, combined with a pragmatic approach toward China. If Trump manages to achieve peace in Ukraine as well, the results would be historic: two major wars ended, hundreds of thousands of lives saved, global geopolitical tension reduced.
In financial markets, this would lead to a “peace dividend”: lower risk premiums, higher valuations, and more stability. Companies doing business with China would also benefit from reduced trade conflicts. Trump has delivered more concrete peace achievements than most recent Nobel Peace Prize winners. The fact that he is not receiving the prize says nothing about his achievements—in my view, it says everything about the political bias of the committee.
Han Dieperink is chief investment officer at Auréus Vermogensbeheer. Earlier in his career, he was chief investment officer at Rabobank and Schretlen & Co.