War, Power, and the Politics of Distraction: The Pattern Nobody Wants Named
- Nuraiah Binte Farid
- 19 hours ago
- 5 min read
Breaking News: A country is bombing another. Again. We’ve become desensitised to war, and honestly, is it truly our fault when every headline downplays the gravity of this violence? News Writer Nuraiah explores how governments have marketed warfare as defense and how it’s worked. Until now.
Wars have always been marketed using the same words: defense, stability, and security. Governments disguise military actions as something they do out of obligation. They argue that they are taken out of defense, not power. They talk about national survival, moral obligation, and so on. However, there is a deeper reality that is rarely talked about.
The reality is that war is not simply about defense. It is also about maintaining the international system's power structure and geopolitical and strategic dominance.
After all, war protects power.
The Language of Defense and the Reality of Power
War is rarely treated as expansion or dominance by states. More often than not, military intervention is justified as being “defensive.” This narrative is crucial because the acceptance of war by the populace hinges on legitimacy.
Legitimate narratives about military conflict frequently depart from the truth. The historical record is replete with examples of interventions that dramatically rewire the politics and strategy well beyond simple defense. The 2003 United States invasion of Iraq, based on alleged “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and national security claims, legitimized enormous instability and reconfigured the geopolitics of the Middle East (Brown University Costs of War Project, 2021). The foreign policy strategy of the United States led to lasting regional instability, the onset of insurgency, and geopolitical shifts in the Middle East.
Similarly, military interventions in Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks resulted in a 20-year war with massive human and financial costs. The Costs of War Project estimates that post-9/11 wars have caused millions of deaths and displaced tens of millions globally (Brown University Costs of War Project, 2021).
These wars were presented and manipulated into thinking that necessary defense was needed. Their consequences reshaped entire geopolitical regions.
Structural Military Dominance and Global Influence
Military power functions as a tool for maintaining control. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2025), the United States maintains the largest military expenditure globally, significantly exceeding other nations.
This level of military capability allows states to project power beyond their borders, shape geopolitical outcomes, and maintain strategic influence (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2025). Military dominance reinforces a hierarchy in which powerful states possess greater capacity to intervene, while weaker states are more vulnerable to intervention.
This hierarchy has been embedded within the international system itself for centuries.
Economic Influence and Strategic Control
Military influence operates alongside economic and structural leverage. John Perkins (2004), in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, described systems in which economic relationships were used to influence political and strategic outcomes, stating:
Economic hit men are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars.
His account illustrates how economic influence and military power function together as tools of geopolitical strategy.
Influence is rarely enforced by force alone. It is maintained through interconnected economic, political, and military systems.
Iran, Israel, and Cycles of Defensive Escalation
The ongoing escalation between Iran, Israel, and the United States demonstrates how all actors frame military actions as defensive.
Iran’s use of proxy groups serves as a strategic deterrence mechanism and a means of extending regional influence (Council on Foreign Relations, n.d.). Israel frames its military operations as necessary defense against threats from Hamas and other actors, rooted in a long history of regional conflict dating back to the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 (U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian, n.d.).
At the same time, U.S. involvement in the region is justified as a means of maintaining stability and protecting allies, though analysts argue that such policies can simultaneously undermine credibility and contribute to long-term instability (Middle East Institute, 2024; Modern Diplomacy, 2025).
Each actor frames itself as defensive. Each escalation produces further escalation.
This creates a cycle in which defensive actions by one side appear as aggression to another.
Civilian Consequences as Structural Reality
War’s primary victims are civilians. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (2026), military conflict results in widespread displacement, infrastructure destruction, and humanitarian crises.
Civilian harm is often described as collateral damage. Yet civilian suffering is not an anomaly; it is a predictable outcome of military conflict.
Strategic decisions made at the highest political levels translate directly into human consequences.
Sportswashing
Sport functions as a form of soft power. Governments use global sporting events to enhance legitimacy, improve national image, and influence perception (Boykoff, 2022).
Even during geopolitical conflict, global sporting events continue. For example, international tournaments such as the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup proceed despite escalating geopolitical tensions, with contingency plans implemented to ensure continuity (Business Standard, 2026).
This illustrates how global spectacle and geopolitical conflict coexist simultaneously.
War and entertainment operate in parallel systems.
One produces destruction.
The other produces a distraction.
War, Media, and the Politics of Attention
War also reshapes media narratives and public perception. Political scientists and media analysts describe how major geopolitical conflicts dominate news cycles and shift public attention (Al Jazeera, 2026).
This phenomenon reflects how attention itself becomes a political resource. During wartime, media focus shifts toward national security and external threats, while internal political crises may receive less scrutiny.
Narrative control becomes part of strategic power.
War is fought not only with weapons but also with perception.
Structural Inequality and the International System
The international system reflects unequal distributions of power. Military expenditure, economic influence, and institutional authority are concentrated among powerful states (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2025).
Institutions such as the United Nations Security Council reinforce this hierarchy by granting veto power to a small number of states, limiting accountability.
Power shapes outcomes.
Not all states possess equal influence.
War as Psychological and Structural Power
War is both physical and psychological. It shapes public perception, reinforces political authority, and influences global power structures.
Military force alters geography.
Narrative control alters legitimacy.
Both sustain power.
Conclusion: The Structural Function of War
War persists not solely because of immediate threats but because it functions as a structural mechanism within the international system.
It reinforces hierarchy.
It preserves influence.
It reshapes geopolitical order.
War is presented as defense.
But its consequences reveal its deeper function.
War protects power.
Editor's Note:
This piece questions why wars are always described using the same recycled words like "defense,” "stability," and “security,” as if we've heard this script countless times before. Each decade, the vocabulary remains the same; each conflict, the same ending.
At first, I disengaged, especially after witnessing these systems up close. When you observe closely, you realize how deeply entrenched everything is: power protects itself, corruption is dismissed as "necessary," and you wonder if reacting even matters.
However, disengagement doesn’t break the cycle; it only makes it easier for it to persist. This isn’t written out of blind rage but from observation, seeing how “rationality” and “maturity” are packaged and sold to justify escalation, as if questioning who profits, who pays, and why this repeats is naive.
If this discomforts you, good; it means you’re really thinking.
References:
Al Jazeera. (2026). Epstein and the politics of distraction.
Boykoff, J. (2022). Toward a theory of sportswashing: Mega-events, soft power, and political conflict. Sociology of Sport Journal, 39(4), 342–351. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2022-0095
Brown University Costs of War Project. (2021). Human and budgetary costs of post-9/11 wars. Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.
Business Standard. (2026). ICC contingency planning amid geopolitical tensions.
Council on Foreign Relations. (n.d.). Iran’s regional proxy strategy.
Middle East Institute. (2024). U.S. policy and regional strategic influence.
Modern Diplomacy. (2025). Why America’s Middle East strategy is undermining its global influence.
Perkins, J. (2004). Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Berrett-Koehler.
PolitiFact. (2026). Analysis of U.S.–Iran nuclear threat claims.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. (2025). Trends in world military expenditure.
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. (2026). Gaza humanitarian reports.
U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. (n.d.). Arab-Israeli War of 1948.
Comments