A presidency based on the theme of reality show makes the world topsy-turvy

Trump’s declaration was not about de-escalation. It was about narrative control, a pivot in the headlines, a rebranding of chaos into a supposed act of diplomacy. The 12-hour ceasefire is not diplomacy—it is dramaturgy. It affirms what many international observers have long feared: that U.S. foreign policy, under Trump’s second term, has been reduced to episodic showmanship, built more for spectacle than substance.

Ceasefires are designed to save lives, to cool tempers, and to create a corridor—politically and militarily—toward negotiations or humanitarian relief. In contrast, a 12-hour ceasefire is a tactical pause, not a political solution. It reflects a desire by both parties to either recalibrate military positions or manage optics—not to stop the war.

When a president of the United States attempts to brand this as a diplomatic victory, it exposes a fundamental misreading of international statecraft. Worse, it signals to the world that the United States under Trump is more interested in the image of power than in exercising power responsibly.

Trump’s political instincts, honed not in the Situation Room but in the boardrooms of The Apprentice, have always been tuned to the rhythms of media drama. His presidency thrives on cliffhangers, Twitter storms (now “Truth Social Alerts”), and plot twists. In this latest case, the ceasefire becomes a plot device—inserted at the right moment to change the global conversation from bombing runs over Natanz and Isfahan to Trump’s supposed statesmanship.

But the world is not a studio set. And wars, especially between regional powers like Iran and Israel, cannot be paused and resumed for ratings. The disjuncture between Trump’s need for narrative resolution and the region’s need for structural peace could not be more stark.

Announcing a 12-hour ceasefire, as though it were a major breakthrough, diminishes the diplomatic standing of the United States. It suggests not leadership but desperation: a need to show involvement, any involvement, to maintain relevance in a region where China’s quiet diplomacy and Russia’s strategic opportunism have begun to eclipse American influence.

It also sends a troubling message to allies: if Washington defines success in such low terms, what kind of security guarantees can smaller allies truly count on? ASEAN, which has long walked a tightrope between major powers, is watching closely. When great powers reduce complex conflicts into transactional media moments, smaller states are left to wonder whether their own regional stability is being trivialized.

Trump’s decision to celebrate a 12-hour ceasefire reveals more than theatricality—it exposes strategic shallowness. There is no clear articulation of what the U.S. wants from this confrontation. Is it regime change in Tehran? Is it the preservation of Israeli deterrence? Is it nuclear non-proliferation? Or is it, simply, control over the headlines?

With no endgame in sight, even the Pentagon appears to be operating under ambiguity, unsure whether the Bunker Buster bombings have permanently disabled Iran’s underground nuclear program. American satellite imagery has revealed no conclusive destruction of critical centrifuge systems, with even Chinese scientists suggesting that the geological makeup of Iran’s nuclear sites offers a different structural defense than the ones the MOP bombs were originally designed to destroy in North Korea.

In this murky fog of war, a 12-hour ceasefire is not clarity—it is confusion amplified.

Beijing has not needed to drop a single bomb to emerge as a central figure in this crisis. By merely emphasizing restraint, stability, and its commitment to energy security and diplomatic engagement, China is slowly becoming the preferred interlocutor in the Middle East.

Trump’s short-lived diplomatic optics have provided China with contrast: one superpower pursues grandstanding headlines; the other, long-term entanglements rooted in trade, oil, and quiet arbitration. In an increasingly multipolar world, the symbolism could not be clearer. America is loud; China is consequential.

For Southeast Asia, particularly under Malaysia’s Group Chairmanship of ASEAN, the spectacle of U.S.-Iran-Israel tensions plays out like a cautionary tale. ASEAN’s foundational principle of non-interference, once criticized as indecisive, now appears almost wise in contrast to great power impetuosity.

Malaysia and Indonesia, both pushing for Track 1.5 diplomacy, have stressed the need for multilateral dialogue—not reality-show diplomacy. For ASEAN, peace cannot be gamified. Any “pause” must lead to deeper political reckoning, not mere photo opportunities. This is a region built not on theatrics but on quiet consensus, developmental stability, and civilizational restraint.

Trump’s announcement of a 12-hour ceasefire should be remembered not as a diplomatic triumph, but as a symptom of a broader problem: the transformation of American foreign policy into a series of media-driven episodes, each designed to dominate a news cycle rather than shape the arc of history.

Global leadership requires consistency, vision, and strategy. In place of that, Trump has offered episodic disruption and episodic calm—both designed for maximum optics, neither rooted in sustainable peace.

The world is watching. And many—including those in ASEAN—are increasingly turning away from the spectacle in search of substance. A presidency built on reality show principles has left global order more topsy-turvy than ever before. The question now is not what Trump will do next—but whether the world can afford another season of this drama.

---

Phar Kim Beng is Professor of ASEAN Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia, and a former Head Teaching Fellow at Harvard University and Cambridge Commonwealth Scholar.