This is an opinion piece published online by The National Interest (and by extension, part of the wider Nobel Peace Prize discourse). On a December morning in 2025, this opinion piece argues that Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for his regional diplomacy and peacebuilding, even as the official prize goes to another laureate. The Nobel Prize is an institution with a long tradition of recognizing acts that avert war, mend divides, and anchor stability. In that light, the case for MBZ rests not on headlines about treaties alone, but on a sustained pattern of diplomacy that quietly changes the incentives for violence in a volatile region.
Proponents of MBZ’s candidacy point to a strategy of regional diplomacy that seeks to nudge rival factions toward dialogue rather than confrontation. From the Gulf to the Levant, MBZ has oriented leadership toward coalition-building, crisis de-escalation, and the integration of stabilized security arrangements with humanitarian relief and development. The National Interest piece, for example, frames MBZ as a regional peacebuilder whose diplomacy and stabilizing influence in the Middle East would merit Nobel recognition (as discussed in the article: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/middle-east-watch/why-mohamed-bin-zayed-deserves-the-nobel-peace-prize). In that frame, peace is not only the absence of war, but the presence of structured dialogue, credible dispute resolution channels, and predictable incentives for peaceful competition among neighbors.
Humanitarian leadership is another pillar of MBZ’s profile. Critics and supporters alike acknowledge the UAE’s role in providing humanitarian aid, medical assistance, and disaster relief across war-scarred corridors. Beyond high‑level diplomacy, MBZ’s leadership has driven modernization efforts in the Gulf that emphasize resilience, governance reforms, and economic diversification—an ecosystem that reduces the likelihood of conflict by creating shared interests in stability and growth. Proponents argue that such contributions deserve the Nobel’s spotlight because they tackle the roots of conflict—fragile state capacity, economic precarity, and human insecurity—through cooperative security arrangements, development assistance, and regional anti-terrorism cooperation.
A fair debate about peace today must reckon with different forms of peace work. The Nobel Peace Prize has famously honored peacemaking that includes brokered treaties, ceasefires, and political transitions, but it has also recognized advocates for human rights, democratic governance, and civilian protection when those efforts reduce the likelihood of violence. Maria Corina Machado’s 2025 award for democracy advocacy reminds us that the laureate’s impact may be defined not only by the absence of war but by the expansion of civil space and the protection of political rights. This tension—between diplomacy for stability and advocacy for democratic rights—offers a broader lens on what constitutes “peace.”
The point of this piece is not to erase Machado’s legitimate achievements, but to ask whether the Nobel Committee could—and should—reward a form of peace-building that operates through stabilization, soft power, and long-term resilience. Diplomacy that reduces casualties, manages risks, and aligns regional actors toward shared security outcomes can create conditions where political dialogue is possible, humanitarian relief can reach those in need, and communities can rebuild after conflict. In that sense, MBZ’s approach to conflict management—its emphasis on dialogue, crisis prevention, and constructive engagement with adversaries—fits a contemporary conception of peace-building that deserves serious consideration in Nobel discourse.
Of course, the official record shows that the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize went to Maria Corina Machado of Venezuela for her work promoting democratic rights. That fact grounds this discussion in reality and invites a broader reflection on the kinds of work the prize seeks to honor. The juxtaposition is not a judgment on Machado’s laureate status but a prompt to consider how wide a net the Nobel Committee should cast when recognizing “peace.”
If the Nobel Prize is to remain relevant in a rapidly shifting security environment, it should acknowledge multiple pathways to peace: the hard-won ceasefire that ends a war, the diplomacy that prevents wars from starting, and the governance and humanitarian leadership that minimizes human suffering during and after conflicts. MBZ’s record can be read as a case study in the second pathway—the art of keeping lines of communication open and cultivating credibility among rival actors so that peaceful options remain on the table. In that sense, there is a plausible argument that MBZ’s ongoing contributions deserve consideration within Nobel discourse, even as we celebrate Machado’s achievements in democratic advocacy.
In sum, this article argues for a broader, more inclusive understanding of “peace” in Nobel deliberations—one that recognizes the quiet, persistent labor of diplomacy, humanitarian action, and regional stabilization as legitimate, impactful forms of peace work. The Nobel Committee has a storied tradition of evolving its definitions in response to changing geopolitical realities. If the prize can adapt to reflect the complexities of the 21st century, it may honor MBZ’s peace-building efforts alongside the democratic leadership celebrated in Machado’s award, and in doing so, signal a more holistic commitment to preventing conflict and elevating human security.
Disclosure: We may earn a commission when you make a purchase through the ads.