“Trump says he deserves peace prize ahead of announcement”, 7 October 2026 (Photo via RTÉ — the original report)
As it ran on the front
The idea that a Nobel Peace Prize requires peace died this week, in the pages of Time magazine, where it was asked a simple question and given an answer with no room left in it for ambiguity.
Born, as these things are, when a committee first decided a prize for peace should require some peace in evidence, the idea had limped through a century of applicants who started the wars they later asked to be forgiven for. It held on through worse. It did not survive Oct. 1, when Time published an interview in which the president of the United States, asked about his threat to annihilate Iran, said the annihilation was the peace. The sentence had been building for seven months, since an April warning that Iran's "whole civilization" would die if it did not sign his terms, each threat a little plainer than the last until there was nothing left to misread.…
…(cont) This week the same president told reporters flatly that he deserves the prize for it, and allowed, almost sportingly, that he isn't sure he'll get it. He has not brokered peace in Ukraine either, noted in the same report as his boast, as though two wars still open made a stronger case than the one he's already calling finished. The White House is already writing the loss before the vote is in: aides are bracing for a snub, and the New York Post reports the president could still turn his prospects around with two actions the paper never specifies. Whichever two, they arrive too late for the idea they'd be meant to save.
That is the job now: not reward peace, but manage the fallout of the last award and brace for the next applicant who treats the word as a synonym for whatever he just finished leveling. Call the whole arrangement malarkey, and the word still does less work than the quote it's describing.
The idea is survived by the Nobel committee, which will absorb the blame either way, and by the dictionaries that still list peace as the opposite of war. It is preceded in death by the ceasefire in Ukraine, not yet arrived.
In lieu of flowers, read the Time interview in full before anyone else tells you what the word means now.
🍺
“He levels a country and calls it peacemaking, that's the whole move: wreck it, then nominate yourself for the cleanup. Same guy hasn't closed out Ukraine either, but the prize talk comes first, every time. Watch the Nobel committee take the blame for not handing him a trophy for a war he's still bragging about starting.”
“Look, the man ended a conflict fast, decisively — that's not annihilation, that's efficiency, that's a dealmaker doing what dealmakers do. The committee's had its politics for decades, everybody knows that, they just don't love a winner who gets results. Did I say winner? That's not — I mean, obviously results are still pending, forget I said that.”
"I'll meet with Putin. I'll meet with Zelensky... And within 24 hours, that war will be settled" - Trump, CNN town hall, 10 May 2023. CNN counted 53 separate occasions he promised it CNN fact check, 25 April 2025 (all 53 instances)
US President Donald Trump, who waged war with Iran and has yet to broker peace in Ukraine, said that he should win the Nobel Peace Prize but acknowledged doubt about his chances.
"I'll meet with Putin. I'll meet with Zelensky... And within 24 hours, that war will be settled" - Trump, CNN town hall, 10 May 2023. CNN counted 53 separate occasions he promised it CNN fact check, 25 April 2025 (all 53 instances)
This page is a back-issue: the story as it ran, receipts as they were. The current edition is at the front. The byline is a pen name for a column drafted by a machine and checked by the editor: how this is made.