By-Dr Aswathy Gopi (Assistant Professor)
& Adhishmaya E V (Research Scholar), Department of Psychology, SRM University AP
In the era of global interdependence, wars not only affect territorial boundaries but also economies, media networks, and political landscapes. The decades-long and still-evolving tension between the United States and Iran illustrates how international conflicts resonate far beyond the battlefield. The conflict is significant and consequential for India, a nation that has positioned itself between Western alliances and regional partnerships.
The hostile relationship between the US and Iran is the result of decades of ideological divergence, political mistrust, and competition. The 1953 coup, engineered by England and supported by the US, brought down Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and can be seen as the potential origin. After this interference, Western interventions and influence came under scrutiny and created deep suspicion in Iranian political history. In the later years, the Iranian Revolution further altered the relationship by replacing the Western monarchy with an Islamic Republic that positioned itself in opposition to US authority and influence.
In the book “Israel, the United States and the Antagonistic Identification of Iran,” Jérémy Dieudonné argues that US foreign policy is shaped by identity-driven narratives, particularly in position with pro-Israel, and it is not just a strategic calculation. In this structure, opposing Iran becomes rooted within American political identity itself, narrowing the space for possible diplomatic approaches (Dieudonné, 2026).
In the contemporary context, by targeting Iran’s oil exports, cyber warfare, proxy conflicts across West Asia, and calculated military deterrence and occasional direct strikes, the US-Iran conflict operates in a multi-layered form rather than a conventional war; it manifests through economic alliances. The global landscape and shift in a world order towards a multipolar one can be a result of the growing alignment of Iran and other countries, including China and Russia. More than a security threat, the evolving form of warfare reflects global reach, military expansion, and regional dominance.
India’s involvement and alignment with both the US and Iran place the nation in a distinctive and complex position. India and Iran share deep historical, cultural and economic ties that have taken India where Iran has been a key energy supplier and partner in regional connectivity projects, including Chabahar Port. This port has been operating since 2018, and a 10-year contract was signed with Iran in May 2024 to equip and operate it. The port’s significance enhances India’s geopolitical reach by providing access to Afghanistan and Central Asia. At the same time, India had strengthened its alliance with the US through defense cooperation, economic ties, and taking part in initiatives including the Indo-Pacific framework and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), which is countering Chinese influence through maritime security and technology standards. In terms of sanctions and economic resilience, the dual engagement creates difficulty for India in aligning too closely with the US against Iran, while maintaining relations with Iran could summon pressure from Western allies.
Indian public discourse extends far beyond policy debates and strategic concerns when it comes to the US-Iran conflict. By shaping how individuals think, feel, and collectively interpret global events, this process operates at a deeper level. The conflict enters everyday conversations through news media, digital platforms, and political commentary, gradually becoming part of the public’s mental and emotional landscape, even though it is geographically distant.
The media plays a giant role in these contexts. It determines how news coverage manifests an event. Repeated emphasis on certain themes, such as security threats, nuclear escalation, or regional instability, creates urgency and importance around the conflict. Such a process can lead an individual to form simplified mental images of political actors involved in specific events. The impressions of countries that have fixed roles such as aggressive, stabilized, or strategically caught in between become mental shortcuts that people rely on when thinking about international politics, without questioning their complexity.
Emotions like anger also emerge alongside anxiety, and depending on how it is presented, people usually direct their anger toward perceived injustice or aggression. Frustration can be a result of being unable to identify right and wrong sides, and repeated exposure to this kind of emotionally charged information might lead to emotional fatigue.
The public discourse in India reflects a deeper pattern of identity and belief. The existing worldview of Indians can influence how they interpret international events. The broader beliefs about nationalism, sovereignty, and global justice have a huge role in shaping these interpretations, and they are rarely neutral. When we talk about worldview, it is either understood through the lens of strategic partnership and global order, leading to support for one side, or seen in terms of power imbalance and external intervention, leading to sympathy for the opposing side. With individuals reinforcing their own pre-existing perspectives, the discussions around the conflict often become polarized rather than engaging with alternative ideas as a result of this.
This polarization has intensified in the digital space. Social media platforms decide how people consume and share information, especially political information. A strong emotional reaction often triggers fragmented, rapid bursts of information that come as news rather than in a structured manner. The spread of anger, fear, and outrage-provoking content on social media amplifies psychological impact. Since individuals spend lots of time scrolling through the streams of updates, opinions, and images, the result is a cognitive overload, and to process these events in a reflective way, the amount of information one receives should be appropriate. A unique form of indirect exposure to conflict is there among the youth since they are more immersed in the digital environment. They constantly confront its imagery and narratives from different perspectives, even though the war does not directly or physically affect them. This situation can lead to heightened stress, difficulty concentrating, and a persistent sense of global instability.
By the policymakers and scholars, the discussions are often nuanced and layered, and the conflict is focused from the point of view of long-term strategy, economic implications, and diplomatic positioning. But when it comes to the public, the conversations and discussions tend to simplify the situation into more immediate and emotionally rich content and vocabulary. Even though it makes it easier to understand, reducing the complex geopolitical dynamics into clear-cut narratives can distort the information. This can result in different ways of processing and engaging with that information, as well as in seeking and understanding varying levels of information.
Even though India does not pose any direct danger, the way the conflict has been discussed can create a sense of proximity, and the perception of threat can play a central role in shaping the discourse. The opinions, attitudes, and expectations from the future can be highly influenced by the perceived closeness, and as a result, people may begin to view it as something that demands attention and concern even if its immediate impact is indirect.
The US-Iran conflict is an ongoing process through which people interpret, internalize, and emotionally respond to those events, and it demonstrates that public discourse is not simply a reaction to external events. The conflict is meaningful in how it is imagined, discussed, and felt in society, not just in what is happening on the ground.
