“Real Time with Bill Maher,” host Bill Maher made a striking comment asserting that if President Donald Trump were somehow able to engineer the downfall of entrenched regimes in Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran, he should be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize. Maher’s remarks came in the context of a panel discussion on Middle East stability and broader shifts in U.S. foreign policy.

Maher argued that success in compelling durable political change in three of the Western Hemisphere’s most enduring authoritarian states would constitute a historic achievement—so significant, he said, that it would merit the world’s most prestigious peace honor. While the longtime HBO commentator is not normally aligned with conservative policy positions, his statement underscored the extraordinary geopolitical moment shaped by evolving crises and U.S. diplomatic pressure.

The commentary unfolded amid a string of developments tied to Trump’s second term foreign policy. In late December 2025, Venezuela’s long‑standing Maduro regime fell following U.S.-backed action that removed Nicolás Maduro from power. Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, who was awarded the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her pro‑democracy efforts, publicly dedicated her award to the Venezuelan people and praised U.S. support for the transition, though the Nobel title remains hers, not Trump’s. 

Meanwhile, political chatter has surrounded Cuba and Iran. While a full regime collapse has not occurred in either country as of late January 2026, Trump administration pressure and internal dissent in Iran have elevated tensions, particularly as Tehran has cracked down on anti‑government protests. These dynamics provided the backdrop for Maher’s provocative suggestion that dramatic shifts in these capitals could constitute peace‑building.

Maher’s remarks highlight the broader debate over what constitutes “peace” in an era where diplomatic successes, coercive strategies, and unilateral actions are intertwined. Supporters of the president’s foreign policy argue that ending decades of authoritarian rule can create conditions for stability, while critics contend that regime change rarely produces lasting peace without sustained political and economic engagement.

Regardless of whether Maher’s hypothetical Nobel peace scenario comes to pass, his comments reflect how the unfolding sequence of international events has reshaped conversation about America’s global role, U.S. leadership, and the criteria for international recognition.