In a sardonic article, British author John Criss lampoons the exaggerated praise that Western countries might lavish on Donald Trump in pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize. In an ironic tone, the author presents absurd scenarios—such as sending official delegations to Norway and creating golden statues—to underscore how some parties might disproportionately reward the former US president, elevating him to an almost divine status.
However, the tone shifts sharply when Criss points to a dramatic turn in Trump’s policy — from declarations of peace to direct military action. The author notes that Trump has effectively "turned his back on the mission of peace and decided to win the prize of war," as evidenced by the decision to bomb Iran after the incident involving the kidnapping of the Venezuelan president. This is presented as a new round of escalation in which Washington is targeting yet another leadership.
Criss paints a bleak picture of the US lacking a real military plan, emphasizing that the apparent objective boils down to inflicting damage and changing the regime without a clear strategy. He notes that the death of Ayatollah Khamenei left no obvious successors, complicating Iran’s political landscape and giving the war unpredictable dimensions. The author warns that such interventions risk producing further chaos rather than resolving the conflict.
Special attention is paid to the warning that regime change is not achieved by bombing alone. Criss argues that a policy of pure military pressure will not create pro-Western democratic alternatives inside Iran; on the contrary, it will lead to a political vacuum and obstacles to a peaceful transfer of power. The key message here is that unilateral military decisions lack the instruments to build long-term stability.
In conclusion, the author examines the international consequences of this escalation, particularly for US allies such as the United Kingdom. He describes Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s refusal to join the attacks as "nightmarish," resulting in a loss of support from both sides of the debate. This example serves to illustrate the difficulties governments face in managing tangled Middle Eastern crises amid growing militarization.
Comments on the news
What is the role and real authority of Ayatollah Khamenei in Iran’s political system compared with the president? - Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as Supreme Leader of Iran, holds the highest authority in the country. He is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, sets broad policy directions, appoints key officials (including heads of the judiciary, state media, and commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps), and has the power to approve the election of the president. The president, while head of the executive branch, operates within limits set by the Supreme Leader, and his powers are considerably subordinate. Essentially, the Supreme Leader is the highest religious-political authority, while the president is the administrative head of government.
What are the main political factions or groups within Iran that might vie for power in the event of a vacuum, and are there truly "pro-Western" forces among them? - The main political groupings are conservatives (principalists), reformists, and moderates. Conservatives, closely linked to revolutionary institutions (IRGC, Basij), have the greatest levers of influence. Reformists advocate gradual change within the system. In the event of a power vacuum, conservative forces are the most likely contenders. Regarding "pro-Western" forces: there are no officially pro-Western parties in Iranian political lexicon, but some reformist and moderate currents (as under President Rouhani) have pushed for greater openness and dialogue with the West within the existing system. However, they are not pro-Western in the sense of seeking to change the political order.
What is the institution of the "Supreme Leader" in Iran and how is a new leader chosen after the death of the previous one? - The institution of the Supreme Leader (rahbar) is the highest state office in Iran, founded on the concept of "velayat-e faqih" (rule of the Islamic jurist). The leader is the guarantor of the Islamic character of the republic. After the death or removal of a leader, he is chosen by the Assembly of Experts — 88 clerics elected by the people for eight-year terms. The Assembly evaluates candidates for religious and political qualifications (high level of Islamic knowledge, justice, political wisdom). Theoretically, they can select any worthy mujtahid (Shiite jurist), but in practice the choice is limited to a narrow circle of senior clergy loyal to the Islamic Revolution. The process is not a public electoral campaign in the Western sense.
Full version: بعد فشله في نوبل للسلام.. ترمب يسعى لجائزة الحرب