Mir Jafarnama: The Story of Trump and Machado

US President Donald Trump had been deeply hopeful that he would receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025. After being elected President of the United States for a second time, he became almost obsessed with winning the Nobel. To present himself as a great messenger of peace, he undertook several “good deeds” within five or six months. Five months into his second term at the White House, he played an active role in stopping a four-day conflict between Pakistan and India. He also made efforts to resolve the Ukraine conflict. 

At the beginning of the Tehran–Tel Aviv war, he adopted a belligerent stance in support of Israel and even carried out attacks on Iranian military installations. Toward the end, when Israel’s defeat seemed almost certain, he suddenly transformed into a messenger of peace. This, too, became a plus point for his Nobel ambitions. He played a role in securing a ceasefire in the Israel–Hamas war in Palestine, although he is not a supporter of Palestinian independence—that is a different matter. Proposals were even made by Pakistan and several other countries to award Donald Trump the Nobel Peace Prize. 

In such circumstances, Trump had taken it for granted that he would receive the Nobel Peace Prize. A general perception had also formed that the 2025 Peace Prize would be hung around Trump’s neck—only the announcement was pending. Judged by the criteria for Nobel eligibility, he seemed ahead; his “score” was good. But did Donald Trump know in advance that the prize would ultimately elude him? Perhaps he did, or perhaps he did not.

However, the power centers of the American deep state certainly knew. These centers notably include the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon, and sections of the bureaucracy. It is also believed that the U.S. State Department plays a role in this regard. The deep state has no formal structure—it is a concept, but one that has been proven in practice many times. Donald Trump had been uneasy about this deep state even before the election. He repeatedly claimed that America’s deep state was working against his policies. From that perspective, it can be assumed that Trump did not actually know that he was clinging to a false hope of winning the Nobel Prize.

The deep state’s objective was to seize Venezuela’s oil reserves. For that purpose, they chose Corina Machado as their agent—someone who presents herself as the leader of democracy in Venezuela. Until just before the Nobel announcement, Trump apparently knew very little about Machado. He was surprised by the news that this unfamiliar figure had won the Nobel Prize and expressed some resentment. That resentment was reflected in a White House statement, which said that the Norwegian Nobel Committee had prioritized politics over merit. 

Meanwhile, after winning the Nobel, Machado phoned Donald Trump and told him that he was, in fact, the one who truly deserved the prize. Not only that—she dedicated her Nobel Prize to President Trump’s hands. A shrewd woman indeed! By dedicating the prize to Trump, she fully demonstrated her loyalty to the hegemon of the unipolar world, the United States. Trump may also have realized that what the deep state had done was not entirely wrong. To overthrow Maduro and seize Venezuela’s vast oil resources, this woman was undoubtedly a good choice. Thinking this way, he soon forgot the pain of not receiving the prize.

Machado has tried to convince the world that the people of Venezuela are not doing well at all—that ordinary citizens are fleeing the country and that Maduro has established an authoritarian regime. But the reality was never quite that bad.

From the time of Maduro’s predecessor, the revolutionary Hugo Chávez, the people of Venezuela had been doing fairly well. Oil revenues were used for genuine public welfare and development. Numerous hospitals and educational institutions were built, employment opportunities were created, and the literacy rate more than doubled. To build a knowledge-based society, Hugo Chávez himself stood on the streets distributing books to the people. He was inspired by the ideals of Simón Bolívar—the great 18th-century Latin American leader regarded as a liberator—who championed nationalist unity, anti-colonialism, and the establishment of a welfare state for the people. 

Chávez was not a Marxist or a communist, but he supported the egalitarian principles of communist countries and therefore maintained good relations with them. Simón Bolívar was born in Caracas and freed Latin America from Spanish colonial rule. He was the leader and driving force of the anti-colonial struggle in Latin America. Under his leadership, at least five countries—including Bolivia and Venezuela—gained independence. Bolívar called for Latin American liberation and unity; nationalism, justice, equitable distribution of wealth, and the welfare state were his ideals. Hugo Chávez was a true follower of Bolívar. While most Latin American countries failed to realize the welfare-state ideal, Chávez’s Venezuela largely succeeded. 

Nicolás Maduro is Chávez’s ideological successor. Therefore, the claim that people were suffering terribly under Maduro is Western propaganda. It must also be understood that what it means for people to “live well” differs between a bourgeois perspective and that of a welfare-oriented state. This is not the place for a detailed discussion. Debate may continue over how well Maduro carried Chávez’s political legacy; deviations are not surprising, since Maduro lacked Chávez’s charisma and leadership qualities. Moreover, continuous conspiracies by Machado and other proxy politicians weakened Maduro’s administrative strength. But Maduro was not an unpopular leader—certainly far more popular than Machado. To pave the way for U.S. aggression aimed at seizing Venezuela’s oil resources, figures like Corina Machado prepared the ground. While this process was ongoing, Machado was encouraged by being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

It is often said that all Nobel Prizes, especially the Peace Prize, are awarded with consideration of U.S. and Western alliance interests. In the case of the Peace Prize in particular, the Norwegian Parliament is believed to reflect the wishes of the American deep state. Norway is a trusted military, economic, and strategic ally of the United States. Further comment is unnecessary.

In essence, in exchange for the Nobel Peace Prize, Corina Machado—leader of Venezuela’s opposition and an admirer of the butcher Netanyahu—sold out her homeland’s independence. It is well known that President Maduro and his wife were taken away by the United States. Venezuela’s administration is now in American hands, and the world’s largest oil reserves are under U.S. control. In this situation, Nobel laureate María Corina Machado was ecstatic. She described this aggression as a great opportunity for Venezuela and claimed that Venezuela had regained its independence. She said that democracy would be established in Venezuela under her leadership. But Donald Trump himself poured cold water on those claims. When journalists asked the U.S. President whether Venezuela would now be governed under Machado’s leadership, Trump replied bluntly that Machado lacked the competence to run a government and had no popular support. In other words, Machado had no future.

History is full of examples where brokers and traitors are discarded like banana peels after use—this is not the first time. In 1757, Mir Jafar Ali Khan was rewarded with the throne of Bengal for betraying the independent Nawab Siraj ud-Daulah. He became a puppet Nawab. In 1760, Mir Jafar was removed and his son-in-law Mir Qasim was installed instead. Mir Qasim was also a loyal agent of the East India Company. After ascending the throne, when Mir Qasim realized that he was merely a puppet, he had an awakening and stood up against the Company. But perhaps he did not know that masters do not tolerate defiance from their agents. Mir Qasim was removed, and the old and inept Mir Jafar was reinstated. Mir Jafar died helplessly in 1765; his English masters did not even look back at this wretched traitor. After Mir Jafar’s second appointment, Mir Qasim fled and eventually died in 1777, penniless and broken by illness.

This history is well known to Bengalis. Let us now look toward Panama. Manuel Noriega rose to absolute power there; he was a CIA agent who regularly supplied intelligence and became trusted in Washington. With US support, he became Panama’s strongman. Once in power, he tried to defy the United States and gradually became anti-American, effectively treating the U.S. as an enemy. The United States did not tolerate such arrogance from its trusted agent. A military operation was launched, Noriega was ousted, and although he sought refuge in the Vatican embassy, he was eventually arrested by U.S. forces. He was tried in an American court, served his sentence, and was later sent back to Panama, where he died in 2017. This is the lesson of history. But the greatest lesson of history is that no one learns from history.

Author: Senior journalist and fiction writer