Anatomy of a Media Hit

I went on television yesterday to talk about Iran and Israel. This is my story.

Photo by Diego González on Unsplash

On Monday I went on CNBC’s The Exchange to talk about the current state of Iran-Israel tensions and what, if anything, the Biden administration can do about it. Here’s the clip in its entirety:

Have you ever wondered what a commentator is thinking as they are on television? With this media hit fresh in my mind, the hard-working staff here at Drezner’s World thought it might be instructive to provide a running commentary of these five minutes and 46 seconds of video:

PRE-AIR: I an contacted about appearing soon after Iran launched its missiles. I say yes because I have done this before and it would force me to stay on top of a real-time event. I should have consulted with my wife, however, as it turns out our house was getting cleaned during that exact time. Which meant my backdrop would not be my home office with all my fave books, but my wife’s home office. This means I am already off my game.

I prep by writing what I wrote on Monday and staying abreast of ongoing news. I also learn that the other person on the panel will be Danielle Pletka from AEI. I have known Dani for well over a decade. She is very good on camera and I know she will be critical of the Biden administration as being too timid towards Iran. This does not mean that I will automatically disagree with her statements, but it does mean I need to pay attention to what she says in case I think some pushback is warranted.

00:12: The anchor Jon Fortt calls me “Dan,” which is fine, but usually if I’m speaking I prefer to be introduced as “Daniel.” This is an extremely picayune thing that should not matter and yet will nettle me for the next few seconds while Dani is speaking.

01:05: Pletka says, “we’re all using these phrases… ‘escalation ladder,’ ‘restore deterrence’ and at a certain point it sounds like you’re in grad school and not in the real world.” When someone in Washington says something like this it easy to infer that the language is designed to belittle the academic participant as not being part of, you know, the real world. I have no idea if Dani did it intentionally or not, but I file that away.

01:53: Fortt asks me a fair question, which is whether there’s an escape hatch where both sides feel that they’ve been tough but the escalation neither side wants is avoided. Do I have a good answer off the top of my head? Of course not, it’s a really goddam hard question! I’m going to have to talk and think at the same time and sound cogent while doing it. Ruh-roh.

01:58: See where I close my eyes? That’s my brain trying to come up with something cogent to say in real time.

02:05: I start by trying to place the attack in context, which is important. What Iran did represented an escalation, but it was a response to Israel’s attack on Iran’s consulate in Damascus, which was also an escalatory step. Neither Pletka nor the host had mentioned this point. I think is an important one to make — and it also buys my brain time to think ahead on how to finish this point.

02:12: I say “you know,” which is a verbal tic I have that really good talking heads do not have. Fortunately this is the only time I say it during the conversation.

02:22: I arrive at recommending a “deadly but not spectacular” attack. Hey, not bad, brain! That was a decent point to make on the fly.

02:40: I reference Dani’s point about grad seminars and the real world to show that I am listening to what she says as well as point out that “getting tough on Iran” could end very badly.

02:48: Hey, I stuck the landing on my first point! I can breathe now while it’s Dani’s turn to speak.

03:14: Pletka talks about Biden being viewed as weak on all sides. Again, I’m not surprised by this observation from Dani.

03:40: Pletka graciously references a point of mine as she acknowledges that Israel can’t fight Hamas and Iran at the same time. Acknowledging the other commentator is always good form, as it causes viewers to trust us as somewhat honest intellectual brokers.

04:20: Fortt asks me about the Biden White House walking the domestic politics tightrope, following on from Pletka’s assertion that they’re doing it inexpertly. Which is fine, and I’m formulating an answer when…

04:23: Fortt says, “I can’t imagine a scenario where the United States lets Israel be on its own alone facing an attack from an Arab neighbor.” Now I’m not a Middle East expert but I do know that Iran is not an Arab country. And the academic in me cannot let that go uncorrected. So I correct him. But doing that throws me off my game. I worry that by doing it I sound pedantic. It would have been better if I had pointed out that one of Israel’s Arab neighbors defended Israel from the attack, but I whiff on that.

04:33: I then have to point out that the Biden administration had already made it clear to Israel that the U.S. would not participate in any offensive attack on Iran.

04:50: I feel it necessary to respond to Dani’s suggestion that Iran has not been deterred by pointing out that in fact Iran was deterred from proxy attacks on U.S. forces back in the fall after the U.S. responded. This is an important corrective.

05:00: I’m blinking way too much here. Stop blinking, Dan!

05:23: Finally, I try to weave in the fact that Israel’s strategic decision-making in the past six months has not been great and maybe it should take a few beats before responding this time. Because, as I noted earlier this week, it is Netanyahu who is the key-decision-maker now and that makes me super-uncomfortable.

And that’s it. Could I have done a better job? Absolutely! But I didn’t sound like a complete moron either. I managed to say “you know” only once and keep my ums and ahs down to a minimum. And I got my main point across, which is that Israel needs to think long and hard about how to respond.

When it comes to cable news media hits, making a cogent point without flubbing too much counts as a win.