The Television President - 12-Day War Episode

Beginning in 1960, with the pivotal first-ever televised presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon, it became clear that media would play an enormously important role in American politics. From that point onward, elections—and the presidency itself—were shaped by television’s influence. But we never truly imagined how far that might go until the advent of social media. We couldn’t foresee how broadcast media—by which I mean television and social media combined—would not just influence or depict, but actually create a presidency. And I mean a real one, not a fictional TV series.

Trump has completely obliterated (his favourite new word) the boundary between broadcast media and the presidency. Traditional political journalists, observers, and commentators have been left utterly befuddled. The problem is that they’re still trying to view his presidency through the old lens, applying to him the standards of policy and communication that no longer apply. They talk about him as if he were just a more extreme version of a normal president. They say he "defies convention" and "busts norms." But he doesn’t merely defy convention or break norms—he’s operating from a completely different script.

Trump's conception of the presidency has more in common with The West Wing or Survivor than it does with governance. He is a character playing a role in a fictional story. The elements of film production are his guiding principles—scene setting, casting, drama, set design, lighting, hair, and makeup. He thinks in terms of storylines and spectacle, not national interest, policy, or strategy.

Is fact-checking something we do when watching our favorite miniseries? Of course not. Facts don’t matter to trump or his crew—not because they’re lying in the traditional sense (they are of course), but because they’re working in a different genre. He’s not misleading reporters in his daily scrums—he’s delivering lines written to serve a narrative and hold the attention of his audience. In this light, film and TV critics probably have a better grasp of his presidency than political scientists. It’s why media critic Michael Wolff, author of the 2015 book Television is the New Television, has arguably been one of the most astute chroniclers of the trump phenomenon.

Trump was created by media, in the media capital of New York City. He cut his teeth in the world of magazines and tabloids, then graduated to The Apprentice, where he honed the persona that would pave his way to the presidency. He was able to ride that persona to the White House because the electorate, in the age of social media, increasingly sees itself as characters in a fictional world. His followers at his rallies are like extras taking direction. Or a game show host and the studio audience. That’s the essence of trump's bond with his followers. It feels cultish because it functions like the bond between a performer and his supporting act. Trump’s pact with his most fervent supporters is like Willy Wonka’s with the holders of the Golden Ticket: Enter my world of fantasy and imagination, and I will provide you with joy, laughter, and surprise—all you have to do is believe.

All of this was on full display in the recent episode of this new season of The Trump Presidency Show—the “12-Day War” episode. Stealth bombers dropping massive bunker-buster munitions in the middle of the night made for the highest drama. According to Secretary of Defense Hegseth—a former Fox News personality—“the President directed” (yes, he actually used that tv-speak) “the most complicated and secretive military operation in U.S. history.” Apparently, the Secretary of Defense never heard of D-Day. His press conference had all the elements of a well-constructed scene: a bit-player trying to save his role by picking a fight with journalists (who dutifully played their part) after the previous episode—the “Parade Episode”—fell flat. It’s worth noting that trump pulls much of his supporting cast from Fox, at last count 23 members of his administration have worked as on-air personalities, commentators, or presenters.

If there’s one thing I can predict with confidence, it’s this: like all TV shows, this one will eventually jump the shark. I just hope not too many people get hurt in real life when it does.

It's All Because of Obama

We know something today that we didn’t know just a few months ago: Iran’s bark is far worse than its bite. After years of speculation about its military might, we now have something close to a real-world test—and the results are in. Thanks to recent U.S. and Israeli military operations, Iran stands as a diminished force, exposed for what it truly is: a regime whose power lies not in its capacity to strike, but in its ability to project the illusion of strength.

But how much farther ahead are we, really?

Iran’s fearsome reputation has long been a subject of debate. The real issue was never whether it could strike, but whether anyone was willing to test the proposition. That test has now taken place. And what we’ve confirmed is something analysts have long suspected: Iran’s post-1980s war strategy has centered on two things—cultivating a network of proxy militias and developing a nuclear program that serves primarily as a bargaining chip.

The proxy strategy allowed Tehran to skirt international accountability while creating chaos abroad. The nuclear program gave the regime a shield—an insurance policy against regime change, and a powerful tool for international leverage. But despite all the breathless warnings over the years, there’s little evidence that Iran ever intended to actually fully develop much less use a nuclear weapon, against Israel or anyone else. If it had been hell-bent on doing so, it would never have agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015.

What the JCPOA revealed—though many missed it—was that Iran’s nuclear ambitions were negotiable. It was a revelation that should have reframed our understanding of Iran as a strategic, calculating actor rather than an irrational one. For all the deal’s flaws, it functioned as proof of concept: nuclear weapons aren’t primarily military tools anymore—they’re political instruments. And Iran was willing to trade that instrument for sanctions relief.

That brings us to the pivot point of the era we’re living through: Trump’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA in May 2018.

Let’s be honest—trump didn’t pull out of the deal because it was ineffective. He withdrew because Barack Obama had signed it. Trump committed himself early on to dismantling Obama’s legacy piece by piece—health care, climate agreements, and yes, foreign policy. The JCPOA was low-hanging fruit, and he took it down with gusto.

He was helped along by Bibi Netanyahu, a long-time opponent of the deal, and by a cadre of politically influential donors who had been lobbying against it for years. But trump needed very little convincing. In his world, if Obama built it, Trump had to bulldoze it.

The irony is rich. Today, trump is quietly hoping that Iran will return to negotiations—the very path the JCPOA made possible and that his administration shattered. Meanwhile, Netanyahu is dreading exactly that outcome, knowing any revived diplomacy could re-legitimize a deal he worked so hard to kill.

Trump now finds himself trapped by his own rhetoric. Any new agreement he might broker will inevitably be compared to the one he discarded. And he knows it. That’s likely why, when announcing that U.S. representatives would be meeting with Iranian officials next week, he quickly added, “We might not need a nuclear agreement.” It’s a preemptive hedge. Because negotiating a deal over something you claimed to have "obliterated" doesn’t quite add up.

Of course, it wouldn’t be trump without a twist of narcissism. His obsession with winning a Nobel Peace Prize—because Obama got one, of course—has become a guiding light for his foreign policy instincts. He floated the idea of winning it for brokering peace between India and Pakistan. Then between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. Now, perhaps, he sees Israel and Iran as his long shot to glory.

But the real prize may have been within reach years ago—when Obama, along with a coalition of world powers, struck a deal that curbed Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot. It wasn’t perfect. But it was diplomacy. And it worked—until it didn’t, because it bore the wrong name.

And so here we are, again, circling back to where we started. Iran, diminished and exposed. Trump, desperate and entangled. And Obama, still living rent-free in the mind of a man who would undo the world just to outshine him.

Marketing Meets Reality

Eventually, the truth is known. Sometimes it takes a very long time. Sometimes not so long. In the current round of the Israel–Iran conflict, the truth about the actual damage will be known relatively soon. But the shaping of the narrative—regardless of the facts—began within hours of the U.S. attack. There was no time to waste. Victory was claimed. Officials insisted that the target was "completely, totally obliterated," a phrase repeated by various members of the administration so it would be echoed by the media—and many outlets happily obliged.

The only problem is that “obliterated” is technically a meaningless term when it comes to the damage assessment of a military operation. It is transparently spin. Military officials use three words with specific operational meaning: a target is considered destroyed when it is eliminated entirely; defeated when it is rendered unusable for the time being; or delayed when it is temporarily incapacitated but repairable.

We will soon know the true status of Iran’s nuclear program and, in particular, the three targets hit by the U.S. B-2s. An initial Pentagon assessment—leaked and largely corroborated by Israeli intelligence—indicates that Fordow, Iran’s main nuclear development site, was nowhere near “destroyed.” It wasn’t even “defeated.” The preliminary consensus appears to be that it was "delayed"—for a period of months to a year.

If this is confirmed, it would be a worst-case scenario. Not only has Iran’s nuclear program survived, but Iran now finds itself in an extremely vulnerable position—cornered, so to speak—which is likely to embolden hardliners within the regime. Rather than discouraging nuclear development, this attack may add urgency to their pursuit of a weapon. Iran may now be more motivated to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and use any negotiations as little more than a smokescreen.

I suspect the Iranians either knew the American strike had largely failed or, at the very least, had moved their enriched uranium beforehand. Their “retaliation” appeared deliberately symbolic: a carefully calibrated response with advanced warning to ensure minimal damage. It was a savvy strategic maneuver—and the weak-willed, unprincipled, and clueless trump took the bait. He publicly thanked Iran for the warning and rushed to declare a ceasefire, possibly without even consulting the principal combatants. It seemed obvious—at least to me—that he was being played, again. His public outburst the next morning, criticizing Israel for threatening the ceasefire he had unilaterally imposed, sealed the deal. The mullahs are smiling.

How did we go from Netanyahu dancing a jig at U.S. involvement over the weekend to the mullahs of Iran throwing a party at the announcement of a ceasefire two days later? Since when did following international conflicts give analysts a case of whiplash? The answer is clear: since an impetuous man-child took over the White House.

Netanyahu maneuvered trump into attacking Iran.

Iran maneuvered trump into getting Israel to stop attacking before the job was complete.

On the chessboard of international affairs, there are players and there are pieces. In this game, Netanyahu and Khamenei are the players, and trump is a piece—an important and powerful one, like a Queen that can move in all directions—but a piece nonetheless. The same can be said about the conflict in Ukraine. The players are Putin and Zelensky, and they are maneuvering trump around the board as well.

Now that trump has declared victory, branding the conflict the “12-Day War” (a reference to Israel’s Six-Day War), what will he do when the official damage assessments say otherwise? Admit he was mistaken—as if he’s ever done that—and attack again? He’s painted the U.S. into a corner once more. If the administration continues to insist that the targets were “obliterated,” we may be looking at a case where the cover-up is worse than the blunder itself.

I have a feeling Iran will move to encourage trump to get 'negotiations' back underway. 

I have a feeling Netanyahu won't let that process play out without making some moves of his own, especially as attention now turns back to Gaza, which is still going very badly.

Serge Fiori

It seems to be a month for the passing of our rock and roll heroes. Brian Wilson, Sly Stone, and this week Mick Ralphs the great British guitarist who gained fame with Mott The Hoople and later Bad Company. Millions of teenage basement bands, including my first band, can thank Mick Ralphs for teaching us how to rock on the three chorder Can’t Get Enough. That was the first rock song I ever learned to play, but it took 45 years for me to learn - from an interview with Ralphs I recently watched - that we were playing it wrong. Turns out it was originally played and recorded in an open C tuning, not standard tuning. No wonder it never sounded quite right when we played it. 

But I wanted to pay tribute to another pioneer of rock music with this post. Someone who you probably don’t know, but who was, for anyone growing up in Quebec in the 1970s, absolutely pivotal: Montrealer Serge Fiori, who also passed away this week, fittingly in the early morning hours of La Fête Nationale du Québec (formerly called Saint-Jean Baptiste Day). 

One of the few albums that I have never stopped listening to into my middle age, is the eponymous first album by the Quebec band Harmonium. Fiori was a founder, songwriter, guitarist and lead singer of the band. 

Thanks to new Canadian Content regulations on radio, and the album rock orientation of FM stations, the burgeoning Canadian and Quebec music industries enjoyed a heyday in the 1970s. Along with progressive British rock groups like Supertramp, Genesis, Pink Floyd and Yes, who were just beginning to break into the North American market by way of Quebec FM radio, we also had hugely popular local artists like Michel Pagliaro, Robert Charlebois, Beau Dommage and my favourite Harmonium. I would describe the music of Harmonium as progressive folk, along the lines of the Moody Blues (who were also extremely popular in Quebec). The music had a distinct traditional Quebecois flavour, with lush twelve-string guitars, tempo-changes, and interesting chord voicings. Songs from the first Harmonium album were ubiquitous on the airwaves, especially the single Pour Un Instant, with the deeply resonant opening lines: 

Pour un instant, j'ai oublié mon nom,

Ça m'a permis enfin d'écrire cette chanson.

Pour un instant, j'ai retourné mon miroir,

Ça m'a permis enfin de mieux me voir. 

(translation) 

For a moment, I forgot my name,

It finally allowed me to write this song.

For a moment, I returned my mirror,

It finally allowed me to see myself better.

The explosion of Quebec popular music came at a time when political separatism was coming into the mainstream as well. There was a lot of pressure for Quebec artists to publicly embrace the politics, to be voices of the movement, and many (maybe even most) did. Serge Fiori was no different. The lyrics of Pour un Instant were not only interpreted as an individual's experience of momentarily losing oneself in art and experiencing a sense of spiritual universal transcendence and renewal. It was also seen as an expression of rejecting the identity you have been given (by the powerful, the colonial), and finding a new self, in a nationalist sense. 

Later in the song:    

Des inconnus vivent en roi chez moi,

Moi qui avait accepté leurs lois.

J'ai perdu mon temps à gagner du temps,

J'ai besoin de me trouver une histoire à me conter.

(translation)

Strangers live like kings in my house,

I who had accepted their laws.

I wasted my time stalling,

I need to find a story to tell myself.

As a teenager, anglo-Quebeckers like me who loved the music didn't pay much attention to the political subtext of the lyrics. It's one of those ironies of growing up in Quebec during that tumultuous period, that the very forces that threatened us politically, inspired a cultural renaissance of the richest, most meaningful art and music that we still carry in our hearts. 

 

Ceasefire?

So there’s a ceasefire? Yes? No? Maybe?

I know why Trump agreed to it. The ‘war’ was unpopular and risked getting out of hand. And oh yeah there’s the Nobel Peace Prize he still has his eye on.

If they did, I know why Iran agreed to it. They are running out of missiles and more importantly launchers. They don't do ‘war’ well. They are much more adept at terrorism and proxy war, and also using their military to repress their own population. I suspect they still have some nuclear weapons development facilities intact and fissile material stashed away. You have to wonder what the emergency meeting between Iranian officials and Putin was all about, but we can imagine.

If they did, I know why Israel agreed to it. They were running out of defence system rockets. And probably did as much as they could do to degrade Iranian capabilities.

And if you think this is over, keep thinking. 

And here’s a question to ponder. If indeed Iran - while severely weakened, and at risk of being truly obliterated by escalating the war with US - took steps to preserve itself diplomatically, does it throw cold water on Netanyahu’s forever claim that the Islamic regime is apocalyptic to the point of suicidal? That was the crux of his argument. If Iran got a nuclear weapon they would certainly use it against Israel even if it meant knowing Israel would respond with their own bomb. Mutually assured destruction was not a deterrent to the crazy mullahs. Seems like they care about survival after all. 

Damage Assessment

There’s not a lot we can be certain of these days—except that Benjamin Netanyahu had a very good weekend. And that Iran will retaliate for the American attack.

I would have said Israelis are probably pleased with what the U.S. did—except they’re too busy sprinting to bomb shelters every few hours.

The one thing we can say with certainty is that the situation is far less certain than it was just a few days ago. Wars, by their nature, are unpredictable and have an escalatory momentum. As the old adage goes: easy to start, hard to stop. That’s why diplomacy is always preferable. It offers something war never can: predictability. As long as opposing sides are engaged in negotiations, the process is structured and the outcomes measurable.

Am I glad that Israel and the U.S. have degraded Iran’s capacity to threaten the region? Of course. It’s like the high you get from your favourite gelato. But let’s not hang up the “Mission Accomplished” banner just yet. For one, there are still hostages held by Hamas in Gaza—easy to forget them when the news cycle moves this fast. And I believe the world is far more dangerous today than it was last week.

As I’ve argued before: until there’s a change in the terrorist regime in Iran, any achievement from an air campaign will be short-lived.

And then there’s trump.

Let’s stop pretending he gave any serious thought to this. He didn’t. He’s not capable of strategic planning. His approach can be summed up in one phrase: “I’ll show them I’m not a TACO” (Trump Always Chickens Out—for those who haven’t been following the shorthand). His personal ties to Bibi Netanyahu, Mohammed bin Salman, and the other gift-giving Gulf royals likely played a role. That’s about all you need to know.

So let’s look at the wider implications of trump’s decision:

1. The collapse of U.S. diplomatic credibility.

Secretary of State Rubio said the U.S. had nothing to do with Israel’s attack—a lie. A 6th round of negotiations with Iran was supposedly on the calendar—another lie. After the U.S. strike, Secretary of Defense Hegseth insisted this wasn’t about regime change—yet trump tweeted about wanting Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” then hinted at regime change. The result? Diplomatic credibility in ruins. Whatever legitimacy this administration had—if any—it has squandered in just six months.

2. The nuclear danger has grown.

We don’t know, and likely never will, how damaged Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities truly are without inspectors on the ground. That’s not going to happen anytime soon. The Iranians had over a week’s notice to hide or move fissile material, especially from Fordow. If they now withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and expel IAEA inspectors—as seems likely—there will be no verifiable oversight left. Their path forward is obvious: race for a nuclear deterrent. The diplomacy that restrained that ambition is now dead.

3. International law is in shambles.

All the pearl-clutching over whether these attacks were “legal” is sad to watch. It’s not that legality doesn’t matter—it’s that it’s now a joke. Watching the Iranian representative at the UN Security Council cite the Charter’s sovereignty clauses, you could almost forget Iran is itself a serial violator of those very norms. It was stomach-turning theater. The UN has failed—again—and its prestige has taken another serious blow. Iran should have been expelled from the UN as a state sponsor of terrorism long ago.

4. Are we closer to regime change, or even regime modification, in Iran?

This is the only question that matters. And the answer is: no. In fact, we’re further away than ever. And if the regime survives this, it will emerge more determined to secure a nuclear deterrent—its only insurance policy against future attacks.

So enjoy your gelato while it lasts. Because the sugar rush won’t.