Dr Suman Kumar Kasturi
sumankasturi@gmail.com
The perception one holds of oneself, or one’s nation, is merely a manifestation of the ego. The term ‘self’ in this context refers to an individual or nation as opposed to ‘another self’ or ‘the world.’ The conflict between Iran and Israel serves as a leading example of how ego and strategic interests, intertwined with deeper, long-standing, and structural elements, reinforce the foundation of war. Numerous analysts characterise the ongoing war between Iran and Israel as a war of egos and a clash of legacies, especially in light of intense confrontations such as the 12-day war in June 2025, which ensued after a series of escalating assaults.
The Iran-Israel conflict represents a struggle of egos among ageing or beleaguered leaders—precisely, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iranian Supreme Leader Late Ali Khamenei, and U.S. leadership—who are striving to strengthen their legacies. The bruised egos and tarnished reputations are additional factors that contributed to this war. In the aftermath of Hamas’s attack on October 7, 2023, Israel’s security apparatus was viewed as possessing a massively dented ego, which apparently has influenced the decision to assassinate Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran.
Undoubtedly, the conflict is fundamentally personalised and has been characterised as a US hegemonic spectacle and a personal rivalry among leaders, occasionally at the cost of civilian safety, who are rendered as cannon fodder in a larger war of egos. Additionally, Israel’s 2025 Operation Rising Lion, which targeted Iran, is evidently a strategy to assert dominance and preserve a political career.
A more profound examination of the underlying structural factors reveals that Israel perceives Iran as an existential threat, especially concerning its nuclear ambitions and the Axis of Resistance. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran has refused to acknowledge Israel and consistently advocates for its destruction, while also supporting factions that directly confront Israel—a clear manifestation of ideological animosity. Regional hegemony plays a crucial role in the conflict between these two nations. Both countries vie for influence in the Middle East, with Iran broadening its Axis of Resistance and Israel striving to counter this influence through military actions and intelligence operations. These fundamental structural factors have ultimately culminated in the conflict—a clash of ideologies that evolved from a proxy war to direct, blistering combat in 2025-2026, frequently rationalised by both parties as pre-emptive self-defence.
The most recent updates regarding the war feature a declaration from US President Donald Trump. During an interview, he remarked that a significant escalation of the US offensive against Iran is forthcoming. Trump articulated his military objectives to the press, indicating his intentions to dismantle Iran’s missile capabilities, obliterate its naval forces, terminate its nuclear aspirations, and prevent it from supplying arms to militant organisations. From the other end, Iran and its affiliates persist in targeting US allies in the Gulf region, with the US Embassy in Saudi Arabia reportedly struck by suspected Iranian drones, explosions heard in Iraq, and alarms sounding in Bahrain. Meanwhile, Israel is conducting strikes against Hezbollah positions in Beirut, and has issued evacuation orders for numerous additional settlements and villages in southern Lebanon as it continues its offensive against Hezbollah.
In the context of the ongoing discourse surrounding the Iran-Israel conflict, it is pertinent to reflect on Marshall McLuhan’s renowned work, “The Medium is the Message.” This work addresses the technology, platform, or medium utilised for communication. McLuhan posits that the medium influences and dictates the scale and nature of human interaction, often more significantly than the message itself.
When we apply this concept to the current Iran-Israel war—a contemporary, media-saturated conflict—an in-depth analysis may reveal that in an era characterised by global, televised, and digital warfare, the actual, meaningful objective or rationale for the war—the “message”—is frequently secondary or even absent, while the violent, dramatic nature of the conflict itself—the “medium”—predominates and shapes societal perceptions.
The television and digital media do not simply depict the war; rather, the war has been orchestrated for the medium. The focus is not on who prevails on the battlefield, but rather on the raw, frequently chaotic experience of war within the confines of the living room, which influences public perception and, ultimately, the result. It is undeniable that the medium influences social consciousness: due to the overwhelming nature of war as a medium, it transforms the social and psychological landscape—reorganising, amplifying, or disrupting daily life—irrespective of the specific “message” or rationalisations offered by leaders. War engenders a totalising, often invisible media and violence environment that dictates reality. The portrayal of war through television or digital means dismantles conventional, stable concepts of national identity, bringing the conflict into domestic spaces and blurring the distinction between combatants and civilians.
In a nutshell, this viewpoint emphasises that the “message”—the purported, frequently fluctuating objectives of war—is eclipsed by the significant, structural transformations that war as a medium imposes on society and perception. Amidst an extensive ongoing discourse, a critical question emerges: who truly benefits from any war? While war is predominantly marked by destruction and profound human suffering, certain entities can profit from the ensuing economic activity, shifts in power, and technological progress. Defence contractors and arms manufacturers witness a substantial surge in demand for weapons, ammunition, and other military supplies during conflicts, resulting in skyrocketing profits and stock values. Furthermore, nations that compete with those directly engaged in a conflict can benefit by addressing the sudden demand voids in global trade. Ultimately, the advantages of war are frequently concentrated among a limited number of entities, while the vast majority of the population and the environment bear the brunt of devastating human and material costs.
In summary, although “ego” acts as a crucial catalyst for the swift and at times personal escalation among leaders, it is not the only factor at play. The Iran-Israel conflict is fundamentally anchored in a profound contest for power, ideological endurance, and security within the Middle East. The Iran-Israel war of 2025-2026 illustrates that while personal ego and geopolitical ambitions can indeed render the conflict considerably more unstable, they are not the exclusive causes. Regardless of the underlying motivations, if a ‘war’ is the medium, the inevitable outcome of a war instigated by ego, which will ultimately be a grim scene of countless bodies amidst plumes of unyielding smoke, is its ‘message.’
(An Air Veteran turned independent researcher cum author of 22 Books)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
