A made-for-TV war came with made-for-TV humiliation for Trump

28 June

U.S. President Donald Trump gestures as he arrives at the White House, in Washington, U.S., June 9, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

The president used a bad word on live television yesterday morning. The Washington press corps seems to have taken that as a sign of paternal rebuke, as if Israel and Iran were children who’d gotten into trouble and Donald Trump the father who’d taken off his belt.

But far from seeming dominant, he looked old and weak.

Late Monday night, Trump announced that he had brokered a ceasefire between those two warring nations. At the time, he was preparing for the NATO summit, where he would present himself as a conquering hero, the only one who could “completely and totally destroy” Iran’s nuclear program. He would be the unifier, the savior, the lawgiver, the peacemaker, the embodiment of Pax Trumpana.

But then Israel shot at Iran and Iran shot back.

That spoiled everything and Big Daddy got mad.

“We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing," he said.

The Postreported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been planning to attack Iran for at least a year, even as Trump was trying to bargain over its nuclear program. Later, the Times reported that the president “marveled” so much at how Israel’s bombardment looked on live television that he wanted some of that glory for himself. So he did what Netanyahu had been wanting him to do: he joined his war.

Someone knew what he was doing.

As for Iran, its nuclear program has been set back by a few months, according to an internal Pentagon assessment that was reported Tuesday by CNN, the Times, the AP, the Post and Reuters. That may be due to its facilities being located too deep underground or to Trump’s war-posturing going on for so long that, according to the Times, the Iranian had time to move their enriched uranium out of harm’s way.

Either way, the result of all the bunker-busting bombs, and the billions spent dropping them, is far cry from Trump’s claim over the weekend of having “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program. Either way, someone knew what he was doing and it wasn’t Trump.

You can tell Trump feels humiliated. At the NATO press conference this morning, he repeated the “totally obliterated” lie. To those who reported on the Pentagon assessment, he called them scum. He got Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to spin the lie in various and sundry ways, adding their disgrace to his.

Trump got a made-for-TV war.

It came with made-for-TV humiliation.

As a result, Hegseth said the FBI is going to investigate the leak of the Pentagon assessment. Trump has lost face and someone must pay. And in order to protect Trump's snowflake ego, the regime intends to limit the amount of classified information its shares with the Congress.

But that’s not the only consequence. Since Iran suffered little more than a flesh wound, Netanyahu will have more incentive to find more ways of roping Trump into more war with Iran. Meanwhile, Iran is more united internally than it was prior to last weekend’s bombing, and with that more incentive to ramp up its nuclear program as a result of Netanyahu’s successful initial attempt to rope Trump in. Trump says talks with Iran will restart next week. We can expect the Iranians to say OK, sure, but then keep doing what they’re doing.

Trump wanted a “brief and explosive American intervention in the Middle East to end with the satisfying tidiness of a prime-time season finale,” according to the AP. At this morning’s NATO presser, Trump said the war is “over,” as if he and he alone were the bringer of peace.

But the world isn’t so tidy.

Global leaders are not the base of the Republican Party. His people are willing to overlook anything, even when he humiliates them and himself. The rest of the world isn’t bound by the same factors.

Indeed, in this interview below with William Adler, a professor of political science at Northeastern Illinois University, I said I couldn’t think of another time in my life when an American president had been led by the nose so publicly. Has there been one in our history? I asked.

Professor Adler said he wasn’t sure, but past presidents have sometimes determined that it’s easier to say yes to warmongers than it is to say no. That tracks with our TV president. He is so weakened by his own humiliation that next week, during talks, he will ask Iran to promise to never build a nuclear bomb. They will lie and say okie dokie. Then Trump will accept the lie as true in order to claim victory.

Netanyahu planned to attack Iran months ago, according to the Post, and worked to “recruit” Trump, even as the president was seeking a non-proliferation deal with Iran. The Timesreported that Trump was so impressed by how Israel's bombing was “playing” on TV that he wanted to get in on the action. Did Trump get played?

It's clear that Netanyahu has wanted to do this for a long time, and undoubtedly Israeli military planners have been preparing to do it should the political leadership decide to go forward. I don't think that Trump got "played", exactly, but he did seem to give Israel much more leeway than has generally been the case when Israel has preemptively acted. Trump wanted to be involved, wanted the credit, and it's also true that the attack on Fordo could not have taken place without the US dropping the bunker busters that only American planes carry.

Has there been a president who has been led by the nose like this before? These are my words, but I don't think they are inaccurate.

I'm not sure, honestly. Some presidents of the past have gotten themselves in situations where moving forward was the easiest solution when pulling back seemed too difficult politically. James Madison comes to mind. The War of 1812, historians generally feel, was not really his idea. Western congressmen known as "war hawks" pushed him into it, because they wanted an expansionary war against the British and their native American allies, so Madison eventually followed when Congress declared war. Another example might be William McKinley and the Spanish-American War, although McKinley got involved prior to Congress actually declaring war.

It seems to me that Trump does fine when his opponents have to obey the rules and he doesn't. He struggles when faced with opponents (and friends like Netanyahu) who break the rules as easily as he does. This seems to apply to the "ceasefire." Thoughts?

I think Netanyahu was actually restrained here by Trump, at least by the end. This morning it was clear that Trump was pissed off at both Iran and Israel and was even specifically posting on Truth Social telling Israel to stop its planes from hitting any high-value targets today, so Israel only hit a small radar station instead. Clearly in the beginning Israel had the shackles off to do what they wanted, of course. In some ways Netanyahu is difficult for all presidents because he does what he wants and isn't polite about it. Back in Bill Clinton's presidency, when Netanyahu lectured him in the Oval Office about something, Clinton walked out and said to an aide, "who's the fucking superpower here?"

By all accounts Barack Obama and Bibi didn't get along, and even with Joe Biden, who liked Bibi and knew him for a long time, it's clear that Netanyahu was able to take advantage of the situation. Netanyahu has also angered Trump in the past, like when he congratulated Biden on winning the 2020 election before almost any other world leader.

So it's a mixed bag.

It seems to me that what you're saying illustrates that Netanyahu really does know what he's doing despite Trump saying otherwise, using colorful language. I mean, as things stand, we really could be dragged into another war. We're seeing a calm before the storm.

I don't think anyone knows the long-term yet here. But Iran does seem seriously weakened at the moment. The humiliation of Hezbollah, the fall of Assad in Syria as Iran's proxy, the ongoing war with Hamas (also an Iranian proxy), and now the revelation that Iran's defenses were just a paper tiger. But I don't think Trump wants a wider war and Iran's decision to retaliate in only the most gentle way imaginable implies this may actually be at an end, at least for now.

So perhaps talk of the maga civil war is premature?

I think this reflected real divides within Trump's base. JD Vance really did oppose the strikes, by all accounts, as did [Middle East envoy] Steve Witkoff and maybe others. Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth seemed to be in favor, not surprisingly. Some maga types like Marjorie Taylor Greene truly opposed it. Tulsi Gabbard opposed it. But many want America to use its military might for quick, hard things like this, regardless of the potential consequences. Trump has temporarily papered over those divisions, because he can sell this as a success (though polls show the use of force against Iran was unpopular).

From Your Site Articles