“Can Trump’s War Be Justified? — Empire in Crisis, Media Narratives, and the Politics of Representation”

How the 2026 U.S.–Iran Conflict Reveals the Contradictions of Power and Media Narratives

Dr Manoj Jinadasa
(PhD in Digital Critical Media Studies, Newcastle, UK)
Senior Lecturer and Head, Department of Mass Communication, University of Kelaniya, Kelaniya, Sri Lanka

 

This article examines the 2026 Trump–Iran conflict as more than a geopolitical confrontation, positioning it within broader structures of power, media, and postcolonial critique. Drawing on the theoretical insights of Michel Foucault and Edward Said, it argues that war is not only fought through military force but also produced through discourse, representation, and knowledge systems. By analyzing political divisions, media narratives, and historical patterns of U.S. intervention, the article reveals the contradictions of American hegemony—between democracy and dominance, legality and unilateralism—highlighting a deeper crisis of legitimacy in the contemporary global order.

 

A War Beyond the Battlefield

The 2026 military confrontation between the United States and Iran under President Donald Trump is not merely a geopolitical event; it is a revealing moment in the evolving architecture of global power. While bombs, sanctions, and military rhetoric dominate headlines, the deeper significance of this conflict lies in how it exposes the contradictions of American hegemony—legally, ethically, strategically, and symbolically.

At one level, the war reflects familiar patterns: executive decision-making, claims of national security, and the mobilization of military force in the name of global stability. Yet, at another level, it signals a crisis of legitimacy—one that extends beyond Washington and Tehran into the broader structures of international order, media representation, and knowledge production.

 

Political Division and the Crisis of Democratic Authority

Within the United States, the war has intensified longstanding tensions over the limits of presidential power. Critics, including Congressman Ro Khanna, have argued that the escalation toward Iran bypasses Congress and undermines constitutional norms. Such concerns echo the warnings of legal scholars such as Oona A. Hathaway and Harold Hongju Koh, prominent Yale Law School professors and experts in international law, frequently collaborating on research and legal initiatives, who contend that the absence of legislative authorization renders the conflict legally questionable under both domestic and international law.

However, the issue here is not only legality—it is also what Michel Foucault would describe as the transformation of power. In Discipline and Punish (1977), Foucault famously argued that modern power is not merely repressive but productive; it operates through systems of knowledge, institutions, and discourses that normalize certain actions while marginalizing others. War, in this sense, is not simply declared—it is constructed as necessary through a network of political statements, media narratives, and expert analyses.

The Trump administration’s framing of Iran as a persistent threat can thus be understood as part of a broader “regime of truth”—a discursive formation that legitimizes military action by shaping what is perceived as reality.

 

Strategic Logic or Imperial Repetition?

From a realist perspective, scholars such as Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer argue that the war reflects strategic miscalculation. In The Great Delusion (2018), Mearsheimer critiques the project of liberal hegemony, suggesting that efforts to impose democratic values through force often backfire, producing instability rather than order.

Yet realism alone does not fully capture the deeper historical and ideological dimensions of the conflict. For that, one must turn to postcolonial theory—particularly the work of Edward Said.

In Orientalism (1978), Said demonstrates how Western representations of the “Orient” are not neutral descriptions but ideological constructions that serve imperial interests. The Middle East, in this framework, is repeatedly depicted as irrational, dangerous, and in need of control. Such representations do not merely reflect reality—they actively shape it by justifying intervention.

The contemporary portrayal of Iran as an unpredictable and hostile actor fits squarely within this tradition. It is not simply a matter of policy disagreement; rather, it reflects a long-standing discursive pattern in which Western power defines itself in opposition to a constructed “Other.”

 

The Ethics of Violence and the Limits of Just War

Ethical critiques of the war further complicate its justification. Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars (2006) remains a foundational text in evaluating the morality of armed conflict. Walzer insists that even when war is justified, its conduct must adhere to strict principles of proportionality and civilian protection.

“War is always judged twice,” he writes—“first with reference to the reasons states have for fighting, and second with reference to the means they adopt” (Walzer 2006, p. 21). By this standard, critics argue, the Trump–Iran conflict struggles on both fronts.

Similarly, Martha C. Nussbaum, in Creating Capabilities (2011), shifts the focus from state interests to human well-being. Her capabilities approach emphasizes that political actions must be evaluated in terms of their impact on human dignity and flourishing. War, in this light, represents not only a strategic decision but a moral failure when it undermines basic human capabilities.

 

Media, Representation, and the Production of War

If war is shaped by discourse, then the media becomes a central battlefield.

Western media outlets have largely framed the conflict in terms of escalation, risk, and uncertainty. However, as journalist Nesrine Malik argues, such coverage often simplifies complex realities into emotionally resonant but analytically shallow narratives. She describes this as a “flattening” of political reality—where nuance is sacrificed for immediacy and engagement.

Here again, Foucault’s insights are instructive. The media does not merely report events; it actively participates in the production of knowledge that defines those events. The repetition of certain images, metaphors, and frames—“threat,” “deterrence,” and “security”—creates a discursive environment in which war appears not only rational but inevitable.

From a postcolonial perspective, this process also reproduces hierarchies of representation. Western voices dominate the narrative, while perspectives from the Global South are often marginalized or filtered through Western frameworks. The result is a form of epistemic inequality, where some voices are authorized to speak while others are silenced.

 

Hegemony, Economy, and Invisible Power

Military intervention is only one dimension of American hegemony. Economic power operates through institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which critics argue function as instruments of global governance aligned with Western interests.

This dimension of power aligns with what postcolonial scholars describe as “neo-colonialism”—a system in which formal political independence coexists with economic dependency. Through mechanisms such as debt, conditional lending, and structural adjustment, states are integrated into a global system that limits their autonomy while reinforcing existing hierarchies.

Andrew J. Bacevich, in Washington Rules (2010), suggests that American global leadership is sustained not only by military force but by a broader institutional framework that normalizes intervention as both necessary and desirable.

 

The Ideological Contradiction of Liberal Power

At the heart of the Trump–Iran conflict lies a deeper contradiction within American foreign policy.

On one hand, the United States presents itself as a defender of democracy, human rights, and international law. On the other hand, its actions often involve unilateral interventions, selective alliances, and the strategic use of force in ways that appear to contradict these principles.

Francis Fukuyama’s vision in The End of History and the Last Man (1992)—that liberal democracy represents the final stage of political development—now appears increasingly tenuous. Instead of a stable liberal order, the world is witnessing renewed conflict, rising authoritarianism, and deepening inequality.

Meanwhile, Samuel P. Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations (1996) offers an alternative explanation, suggesting that cultural divisions drive global conflict. Yet this framework has been widely criticized for obscuring the role of power, history, and political economy.

Postcolonial theory offers a more compelling lens, emphasizing that global conflicts cannot be understood without acknowledging the enduring legacies of colonialism, imperialism, and unequal development. The U.S.–Iran relationship, shaped in part by the 1953 coup and subsequent decades of intervention, is a case in point.

 

A Crisis of Legitimacy in the Global Order

Taken together, these perspectives suggest that the Trump–Iran war is not an isolated event but part of a broader crisis in the global order.

The convergence of political dissent, academic critique, and media skepticism indicates a growing erosion of trust in the narratives that have traditionally justified U.S. intervention. What is at stake is not only the outcome of a single conflict but the credibility of the system that produces it.

Even defenders of intervention, such as Robert Kagan, an American Columnist, acknowledge that American power is essential for maintaining order. Yet the question remains: what kind of order is being maintained—and at what cost?

 

Conclusion: Power, Knowledge, and the Future of War

The Trump–Iran conflict forces us to confront a fundamental question: how is war made possible?

It is made possible not only through weapons and strategies but through discourses, representations, and systems of knowledge that define what is thinkable and what is permissible. As Michel Foucault reminds us, power and knowledge are inseparable; as Edward Said demonstrates, representation is never neutral.

In this light, the war is not only a political and military event—it is a cultural and epistemic phenomenon, shaped by histories of empire and sustained by contemporary practices of media and governance.

The challenge, then, is not simply to end this war but to rethink the structures that make such wars appear necessary. Until that happens, the cycle of intervention, justification, and critique is likely to continue—producing not stability, but an increasingly fragmented and contested global order.