Nobel Archives

A group of 320 Iranian political, civil, and human‑rights activists, along with university professors, have issued an open letter to the Nobel Committee urging it to withdraw the “moral legitimacy” of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Shirin Ebadi, arguing that her recent positions contradict the values of peace the Prize represents.

An Open Letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee

The signatories — Iranian political, civic, and human‑rights activists and university professors inside and outside Iran — state that their appeal is grounded in principles of patriotism, territorial integrity, national independence, and human rights. Their request is explicit: the Nobel Committee should revoke the moral standing of Shirin Ebadi’s 2003 Nobel Peace Prize.

They write that the Nobel Foundation has historically emphasized dedication to peace, human rights, non‑violence, and peaceful coexistence. However, they argue that Shirin Ebadi’s conduct in recent years stands in fundamental contradiction to these universal values.

Allegations of Departure from Peace‑Oriented Principles

According to the letter, a close examination of Ebadi’s political positions shows a shift from human‑rights advocacy toward alignment with “far‑right groups,” supporters of military intervention, and forces described as seeking the destruction of Iran. The authors claim that she openly supported military action against Iran in a letter to then‑U.S. President Donald Trump.

They argue that calling for foreign military action — which could lead to civilian casualties and threaten Iran’s territorial integrity — is incompatible with any definition of peaceful conduct or adherence to international law. The letter also accuses Ebadi of holding “double standards” on human‑rights violations, citing her silence regarding incidents such as the attack on a girls’ school in Minab and the deaths of approximately 170 children.

Comparison with Other Nobel Laureates

The authors note that Ebadi had previously criticized Aung San Suu Kyi for silence during ethnic‑cleansing operations in Myanmar, urging her to honor the values of the Prize. They argue that Ebadi herself now finds her own positions in an even more concerning situation, turning away from human‑rights principles in favor of “war‑driven” alliances.

They warn that invoking the label of “peace” to justify violence, indiscriminate sanctions, or war threatens the credibility of the Nobel Prize, asserting that Ebadi no longer embodies the values of peace and has become a symbol of interventionism and militarism.

Appeal to the Nobel Committee

The signatories ask the Nobel Committee to review the evidence of what they describe as Ebadi’s political transformation and to take a symbolic action — either by removing the designation of “Nobel Peace Prize laureate” from her or by formally reminding her of the Prize’s peace‑oriented principles. They acknowledge that the Nobel Foundation’s legal authority ends at the moment the Prize is awarded, and that history judges laureates’ later actions. Still, they argue that the Committee has at least an ethical responsibility not to remain silent when peace‑promoting values are contradicted.

They conclude by stating that although the Prize may not be legally retractable, the status and opportunities it provides have, in their view, contributed to actions that have endangered peace — and that the Nobel Committee should not remain silent about this contradiction.

en.jahanbanou.ir

In her speech on the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, instead of condemning the United States, Narges Mohammadi employed Western-leaning rhetoric to attack Iran—turning peace into a tool for undermining national sovereignty.

A Misused Memorial of Atomic Devastation

On the anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Narges Mohammadi, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, gave a speech that was ostensibly about “peace.” Yet, this was not the kind of peace that stands up to the crimes of great powers. Rather, it was a distorted version that pointed the finger at the Iranian people instead of condemning the bombers. Rather than denouncing Israel and America for decades of nuclear threats, sanctions, assassination of scientists, and attacks on Iran’s infrastructure, she used rhetoric that seemed dictated from Western think tanks: portraying Iran as the root of its woes. Her address not only failed to promote peace—it appeared to continue the strategy evident in her “12-day war” statement, aiming to weaken Iran’s sovereignty and legitimize foreign aggression. The anniversary commemorating Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be a platform for condemning the government responsible for the atomic attack. Yet Mohammadi turned that into an occasion to condemn Iran instead.

Whitewashing American Atrocities

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, by the U.S. using the bomb known as “Little Boy,” ranks among humankind’s darkest moments. Along with the subsequent bombing of Nagasaki, it killed tens of thousands instantly and subjected generations to radioactive fallout. Hiroshima and Nagasaki symbolize the silent victims of wartime atrocities. A true pacifist marking this anniversary should denounce the main perpetrators—the nuclear-armed powers—and demand their total disarmament. But instead, Mohammadi appeared to exonerate them by blaming the victims.

Blaming Iran, Not the West

Mohammadi spoke of poverty, sanctions, isolation, and threats of war—but not as consequences of hostile Western policies. She portrayed them as if Iran were to blame for its problems. She dismissed Iran’s peaceful nuclear program—which has repeatedly demonstrated adherence to the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty)—as mere “linguistic play” or “a cover for power lust.” This framed Iran as aggressor, rather than a nation fighting to survive in a world constantly constructing new threats against it. She didn’t mention Israel’s military threats or its nuclear warheads at all. Instead, she called for a UN-supervised referendum in Iran. This is the very organization which remains silent about the genocide in Gaza or attacks against Iran. Mohammadi claimed Iran’s nuclear program proceeded without public consent—yet millions of Iranians have repeatedly defended their right to nuclear energy through protests and online campaigns.

Speak of Threats and Sanctions

Mohammadi suggested Iranians oppose the nuclear program—but which Iranians? No poll or survey supports that claim. Even during past protests, halting the nuclear program was never a demand. In the 12-day war and various campaigns, Iranians affirmed their right to nuclear energy and demonstrated clear understanding of friend and foe. Yet Mohammadi’s rhetoric made it seem like the Iranian people were victims of their own nuclear program, not of Western threats and sanctions.

True Peace Requires Condemning Oppression

Peace cannot be genuine when injustice and crime go uncondemned. But in her speech, Mohammadi made no mention of genocide in Gaza, bombings inside Iran, or any infringement on Iran’s territory. Instead of standing with the Iranian people, she played on the enemy’s field. This was neither pacifism nor human rights advocacy. Her Hiroshima speech, rather than honoring victims of nuclear bombing, served to exonerate the bombers and legitimize aggression. Today, Iranians know who truly represents their voice—and who, masquerading as a peace advocate, lobbies for the enemy. With these positions, Narges Mohammadi neither deserves the Nobel Prize nor the respect of the Iranian people.

Nobel—or a Western Tool?

The Nobel Peace Prize, meant to symbolize the fight for peace and justice, has become a tool for advancing Western agendas. Mohammadi’s involvement in this sphere has been beset by controversy. At the Nobel ceremony awarding her the Peace Prize, figures such as Abdullah Mohtadi—a leader of the Komala terrorist group—and Nahid Bahmani—from the separatist Democratic Ahvaz Party—were present at the invitation of Mohammadi’s husband, Taghi Rahmani. Their presence stripped away her guise of freedom-loving, Iran-supportive credentials and revealed her alignment with separatist and undermining groups. Further raising eyebrows was her family’s meeting with Sweden’s monarch and her letter to the Swedish prime minister. In that letter, Mohammadi endorsed the trial of Hamid Nouri—an Iranian prisoner in Sweden—and described it as “a flame of hope for justice seekers.” Yet the trial is driven by the Mojahedin-e Khalq’s narrative and pressure from them—Nouri, who was neither a diplomat nor state official, is charged in what his family describes as an unjust Swedish court, where his family’s access has been limited and he is held in one of Sweden’s harshest prisons. Meanwhile, Mohammadi is able to give interviews to Swedish media and release letters freely from prison—suggesting an alarming coordination between her, the MEK, and their Western supporters.

Against Iran During the 12-Day War

During the 12-day war between Iran and Israel, Narges Mohammadi and Shirin Ebadi—both Nobel laureates—signed a statement that, without condemning Israeli attacks on Iranian civilians, demanded that Iran halt uranium enrichment and for its government to step down. That statement, indifferent to the killing of over a thousand Iranians—including women and children—placed blame on Iran and effectively legitimized Israeli military action. Ebadi even characterized the arrest of presumed Mossad agents in cities such as Tabriz, Urmia, Yazd, and Kohgiluyeh-Boyerahmad as “political repression,” calling them “people”—despite these individuals being accused of espionage and sabotage, found with weapons and drones.

The Nobel Peace Prize, while intended to champion peace, has come to represent the opposite for many Iranians. These two Nobel laureates have become mouthpieces for Western hostility toward Iran.