From Statecraft to Stagecraft

Power in the Age of Illusion

“Politics is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.” —Frank Zappa

In an era of livestreamed diplomacy and viral politics, global affairs have become a theater of spectacle. Traditional diplomacy is increasingly sidelined by political theater, as leaders bypass state channels to deliver unfiltered declarations via social media. Strategic announcements now resemble marketing campaigns or product launches. Diplomatic visits and military maneuvers unfold with cinematic precision—rehearsed gestures, symbolic backdrops, media-ready soundbites. Power is no longer merely exercised; it is staged. Which raises the question: who writes the script?

The rising influence of private corporations and financial institutions, increasingly intertwined with government, reveals that politicians are acting less as sovereign leaders and more as facilitators of corporate agendas. Tech giants, defense contractors, media conglomerates, and financial elites—entities whose interests transcend national borders—have emerged as the real architects of global influence, while the U.S. government has become more performative than strategic. Consider the chaotic 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, where two decades of military-industrial investment unraveled in a matter of days—an exit marked not by clarity or purpose, but by disarray and damage control.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration proposed transforming Gaza into a tourism and investment hub—an idea glaringly detached from political and humanitarian realities. But the most dramatic move came later with Operation Midnight Hammer: the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 21, 2025. Six B-2 stealth bombers dropped a dozen 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, aligning with Israel’s long-standing efforts to suppress Iran’s nuclear program. Rather than announcing the strike through a formal press briefing, President Donald Trump livestreamed it as a media spectacle, calling it a “spectacular military success.” The explosion footage, broadcast globally, projected dominance while further blurring the line between warfare and entertainment.

In reality, the spectacle revealed a hollow performance. Intelligence later confirmed that Iran’s nuclear program had been delayed by only a few months—not years. The operation amounted to tactical theater rather than strategic transformation. Defense contractors, however, emerged as clear winners. Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the B-2, and RTX Corporation, producer of the bunker-buster bombs, saw stable markets and renewed investor confidence. Beneath the optics lay a familiar script: the military-industrial complex asserting itself behind the facade of statecraft. Promoted with inflated claims, the bombing served less as coherent policy than as performative nationalism—a symbolic display of strength, staged to affirm corporate power.

This performative nationalism echoed Trump’s Middle East tour from May 13 to 16, 2025—a spectacle that unfolded more like a branded roadshow than a diplomatic mission. Each Gulf state seemed to compete in curating a reception tailored to Trump's persona. In Saudi Arabia, F-15 flyovers, a purple carpet, and a McDonald’s-branded food truck set the tone. Qatar followed with a camel parade and a $400 million Boeing 747-8 as a gift, underscoring the transactional nature of the visit. In the UAE, the Burj Khalifa lit up in red, white, and blue. The tour generated a flood of viral images: Trump in a golf cart with Mohammed bin Salman and Elon Musk, hashtags tracking his every stop, and millions of viewers consuming diplomacy as entertainment content.

Substance gave way to spectacle. The visit produced $2 trillion in economic pledges, much of it orchestrated by private actors like Boeing and Elon Musk’s Starlink. Media coverage cast the tour as a reaffirmation of U.S.-Gulf relations, but one glaring omission drew speculation: Israel—long considered the cornerstone of U.S. Middle East policy—was entirely absent. Why was America's closest regional ally left out?

One reading is strategic: keeping Israel out of the spotlight allowed deals with Gulf leaders whose publics remain wary of normalization. With Israel offstage, the U.S. could secure contracts without inflaming tensions—then reintroduce Israel later as military muscle. Sure enough, just weeks later, Israel returned to center stage during the U.S.-led Iran bombing. Diplomacy first, deterrence later—the sequencing was theatrical.

But another interpretation sees warning signs. Analysts like Shahid Bolsen argue that the U.S. is not protecting Israel, but positioning it—for scapegoating, strategic exhaustion, or both. In this view, Israel’s aggression serves U.S. defense contractors more than Israeli security. The absence from the tour wasn’t choreography—it was distance. The U.S. extracted wealth from the Gulf while letting Israel absorb the geopolitical fallout. According to this reading, the Iran strike wasn’t coordinated defense—it was a setup.

This pattern isn’t without precedent. During World War II, several U.S. financial institutions were exposed for quietly funding Nazi-linked entities, and after the war, the U.S. brought Nazi scientists into its military-industrial fold through Operation Paperclip—proof that American strategy often prizes utility over loyalty. The IMF itself, founded in the aftermath, became a cornerstone of a new global order shaped not around justice, but around control. In this light, alliances aren’t sacred—they’re scripted. Sometimes, allies—like Israel today—aren’t truly protected, but instead are positioned to absorb the fallout of larger geopolitical games.

Motives remain murky. That’s the challenge with modern geopolitics: appearances are curated, intentions obfuscated. Even unscripted moments—like Trump dozing off during a Saudi gala—feed the narrative machine, shifting attention from policy to persona.

Meanwhile, China has mastered its own form of soft-power theater. In 2025, it expanded its Confucius Institutes to over 400 centers across Africa and Asia, broadcasting livestreamed cultural showcases—calligraphy, music, poetry. On the surface, these appeared benign. But beneath the aesthetics lay ideological packaging for a rising empire. Just as the U.S. once mythologized liberal democracy to legitimize its global system of trade and finance, China now offers Confucianism as the moral architecture of a post-Western world.

These performances weren’t standalone. They were embedded in Huawei telecom projects, e-CNY currency pilots, and bilateral media deals. The goal: normalize Chinese values, platforms, and currency. The message was subtle, but clear—offering a new script rooted in harmony, order, and centralized control. Confucianism, in this context, isn’t just cultural—it’s the theological face of China’s future. The Belt and Road isn’t merely infrastructure—it’s ideology.

The Riyadh Summit in February 2025 encapsulated this convergence of finance, optics, and diplomacy. Held at the Ritz-Carlton and livestreamed under #RiyadhSummit2025, the summit brought together U.S., Russian, and Arab leaders to discuss crises in Ukraine and Gaza—neither of which saw resolution. But diplomacy wasn't the point.

The summit staged Saudi Arabia as a neutral broker, a civilizational hinge between East and West. Choreographed press briefings and mirrored halls lent legitimacy, while subtle nods toward BRICS signaled shifting alignments. Russian and Chinese envoys praised Saudi “independence,” and rumors of a petroyuan trade corridor circulated. The suggestion: the world might be tilting.

But the narrative was quickly hijacked. Trump’s regional tour and Operation Midnight Hammer reset the tempo. U.S. dominance was reasserted not through diplomacy, but through high-gloss theater: military strikes, airport arrivals, billion-dollar deals announced under floodlights. Trump had earlier dismissed BRICS as a “fraud cartel.” His follow-up made that disdain policy.

So what was the summit? A power audition cloaked in diplomacy? A soft rehearsal for a post-dollar world order? If BRICS proposed a vision grounded in shared infrastructure and energy sovereignty, the U.S. responded with techno-imperial liquidity—satellites, drones, and debt-financed contracts. One model speaks in vision statements. The other in stadium lights.

And beneath it all looms a darker question: What are they preparing for? Is this just posturing—or infrastructure for a conflict not yet named? The summit ended with smiles, but what followed—military strikes, viral diplomacy, media blitzes—spoke louder. If this is diplomacy, it’s diplomacy by other means.

These episodes point to a deeper shift: governments now operate as performative enablers of private power. Operation Midnight Hammer underscored the defense industry’s dominance over foreign policy. Trump’s international tour prioritized markets over longstanding alliances. China’s cultural diplomacy served as a soft-power front for a new BRICS-centered ideological bloc. The Riyadh Summit promoted financial realignment under the veneer of multilateral cooperation. The state, once the arbiter of collective will, now performs authority to obscure the influence of unelected actors—from Lockheed Martin to sovereign wealth funds.

But who’s on which team anymore? Just before the U.S. struck Iran, Vladimir Putin issued a cryptic endorsement of Israel’s right to “defend itself.” Not a condemnation. Not support for Tehran. A nod of approval. From a BRICS figurehead. From a supposed rival to NATO. It was as if a star quarterback switched jerseys before the Super Bowl—and started calling plays for the opposition.

This isn’t new. In both World Wars, Russia shifted alliances. In the Cold War, it became the West’s chief rival. The performance thrives on these reversals—not necessarily for gain, but for narrative control. When traditional players act unpredictably, citizens are left decoding alliances rather than scrutinizing power. Is this chess, silent coordination, or sleight of hand? The theater thrives on confusion. And behind the curtain, the script remains steady—written by capital.

Historically, statecraft balanced diplomacy, coercion, and commerce in pursuit of national interest. Now it’s about managing appearances. If the U.S. were a corporation, its government would be the marketing division—shaping narratives, projecting confidence, sustaining the brand. That brand might be “freedom,” the dollar, or military might—but the engine beneath it serves shareholders.

Sociologist Erving Goffman likened life to performance, where individuals manage impressions. States now do the same. Philosopher Guy Debord warned of a society where images replace reality. That world has arrived. Power is mediated by spectacle. Governance has become a scripted act.

Why the turn to spectacle? Why did the U.S. double down in the Middle East in 2025? At first glance, it looked like a return to old alliances. But the underlying logic suggests something else. Today, Middle Eastern nations function more like high-paid athletes in a transnational league. Loyalty is transactional, shifting based on which “team owner”—be it a sovereign wealth fund, a corporation, or a superpower—offers the best contract.

It’s tempting to see this as NATO vs. BRICS, but even that binary feels outdated. These are not fixed teams—they are competing systems. The NATO model is financialized—anchored in debt, military projection, and symbolic dominance. The BRICS model is productive—rooted in manufacturing, resource control, and regional integration. As the West grows debt-heavy and energy-poor, the Global South sees its chance to reshape the field.

The biblical maxim that “the borrower is slave to the lender” now plays out globally. Western states borrow to sustain appearances: defense budgets, entitlement programs, infrastructure. Their sovereignty is increasingly mortgaged. Meanwhile, the Global South—led by BRICS—seeks autonomy from Western financial tools like the IMF and SWIFT. This isn’t just a rivalry—it’s a civilizational pivot from a consumption-driven order to one built on production and resource sovereignty.

Trump’s 2025 tariff threat against Mexico—framed as a crackdown on fentanyl trafficking and illegal immigration—was pure media theater. It generated headlines, dominated news cycles, and mobilized his base, but yielded no substantive policy shift. There were no concrete enforcement mechanisms, no new bilateral agreements, and no measurable impact on fentanyl flows or border crossings. It was bold rhetoric with zero resolution—a narrative intervention designed for political optics rather than governance. The move reinforced a familiar pattern: perform crisis, posture strength, then quietly retreat once the cameras move on.

Fact is, the West is in decline, and that’s what we’re really seeing. Historian John Glubb called it the “Age of Decadence”—where illusion replaces virtue, vanity eclipses substance. While Western power still dominates headlines, its authority fragments. In contrast, others build: Turkey and Russia shape Syria’s balance of power; India and Russia sidestep the IMF in new trade pacts; African leaders like Burkina Faso’s Ibrahim Traoré push anti-corruption reforms as national revivals. While the West dazzles, others dig in.

It appears that Western governments are shifting from sovereignty to servitude, perhaps subconsciously. The 2008 bailout marked a turning point—when private power captured the state. Today, firms like BlackRock, Vanguard, and JPMorgan wield power once reserved for governments. They manage energy, data, and defense infrastructure. Politicians now resemble corporate spokespeople. Real power flows to private owners. What emerges may be a post-national order governed not by flags, but by the controllers of global financial capital.

The danger is a hollow world order—simulated governance where spectacle conceals subservience. Political theater distracts from the erosion of human dignity and social cohesion. And we, the audience, are not merely deceived—we are complicit in our own unraveling. Our clicks, shares, and outrage fuel the algorithmic loop that sustains the illusion.

This is the tragedy of the spectacle: governments no longer govern—they perform. Behind the curtain, corporations write the script. How the plot unfolds remains uncertain. What is certain is this: politics has become theater—staged for consumption, financed by capital. And we are its captive audience.

---

If you found this essay valuable, consider supporting my work by sharing it or contributing financially through Patreon, BuyMeACoffee, or another platform. Every contribution helps sustain independent analysis like this.