• Empire in crisis, media narratives, and the politics of representation
• How the 2026 US–Iran conflict reveals the contradictions of power and media narratives

The 2026 US President Donald Trump–Iran conflict is more than a geopolitical confrontation. It is positioned within the broader structures of power, media, and postcolonial critique. War is not only fought through military force but also produced through discourse, representation, and knowledge systems. The contradictions of American hegemony —between democracy and dominance, legality and unilateralism — highlight a deeper crisis of legitimacy in the contemporary global order.

A war beyond the battlefield

The 2026 military confrontation between the US and Iran under 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 mobilisation of military force in the name of global stability. Yet, at another level, it signals a crisis of legitimacy — one that extends beyond Washington, US, and Tehran, Iran, into the broader structures of international order, media representation, and knowledge production.

Political division and the crisis of democratic authority

Within the US, the war has intensified longstanding tensions over the limits of Presidential power. Critics, including Congressman Rohit 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 Anne However, the issue here is not only legality — it is also what Paul-Michel Foucault would describe as the transformation of power. In Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Foucault argued that modern power is not merely repressive but productive; it operates through systems of knowledge, institutions, and discourses that normalise certain actions while marginalising 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 legitimises military action by shaping what is perceived as reality.

Strategic logic or imperial repetition?

From a realist perspective, scholars such as Stephen Martin Walt and John Joseph Mearsheimer argue that the war reflects strategic miscalculation. In The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, 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 Wadie Said.

In Orientalism, 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.

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.

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.

The ideological contradiction of liberal power

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

On the one hand, the US 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.

Postcolonial theory offers a more compelling lens, emphasising that global conflicts cannot be understood without acknowledging the enduring legacies of colonialism, imperialism, and unequal development. The US–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 a part of a broader crisis in the global order.

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 Foucault reminds us, power and knowledge are inseparable; as 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.

The writer is a Senior Lecturer at and the Head of the Kelaniya University’s Mass Communication Department

---------

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication