6 min readApr 1, 2026 06:00 AM IST First published on: Apr 1, 2026 at 06:00 AM ISTThe catastrophe of war in Iran is being effortlessly masked by a fog of abstractions, circumlocution, and feigned normalcy. It is almost as if the populations of democracies, particularly in the United States but also elsewhere, have been morally anaesthetised into indifference. In all wars, there is disinformation, self-delusion, and a rallying around the flag. Yet the paradox here is striking: A Pew Poll reports that 61 per cent of Americans disapprove of it. Even globally, there is no rousing support for this conflict, only a sullen, quiet coping. Normally, such facts might reassure us: Not all publics have surrendered to cruelty. But the nature of the impending catastrophe is such that these facts only deepen our anxieties rather than relieve them.For those of us familiar with the US, it is difficult to recall a war of such consequence so thoroughly removed from effective public consciousness. The media landscapes of most democracies have become, in effect, more reminiscent of the propaganda apparatuses of authoritarian states than of free societies. There are multiple mechanisms at work. First, there is the sheer lack of coverage, or at least meaningful coverage, of the war and its tangible consequences. The fragmented media ecosystem, with its partisan reporting, random social media clips, and endless expert analyses, produces the illusion of knowledge without offering the public any real experiential confrontation or synthesis. Democracies, astonishingly, have perfected the art of disguising the true character of war.AdvertisementSecond, the language in which the war is described is deliberately abstracted: “Capabilities degraded”, “escalation logic”, “targeted operations”, “tactical advantage”. These terms sanitise violence, rendering the war almost invisible to collective consciousness. Third, there is an intensification of racial and national hierarchies of concern. Some hierarchies are inevitable: Our empathy is shaped by common fate and shared history. But the regression we have witnessed since the war in Gaza is extraordinary. When former secretary of state Antony Blinken claimed that “there is no hierarchy of trauma”, the statement was hard to classify. Was it self-delusion, a lie, or mere bulls**t? The fact that such a statement could be delivered with a straight face in a democracy saturated with selective concern signals a degradation of public discourse.There is widespread moral and psychological fatigue. Even those fully aware of the impending catastrophe feel utterly disarmed and disempowered, as though democracy itself has been evacuated as a site for reflection on war. The most worrying feature of American democracy at this moment is not that it has grown more disposed to cruelty, but that it seems to have reached a point where everyone seeks absolution from responsibility. The denial of war has become so complete that it exempts society from the moral burdens of judging and acting.This pattern is mirrored internationally. Talk of a middle-power coalition abounds. India, Japan, Canada, and other states understandably seek to shield themselves from the immediate fallout of war. They are not responsible for initiating the conflict. But in seeking to distance themselves, they also absolve themselves of the responsibility to try to end it. There is extensive circumlocution: The language of self-interest dominates. Yet there is a crucial difference between prudential self-interest and moral narcissism, which seems to rule the roost.AdvertisementAny discussion of a stabilising coalition of middle powers remains hollow so long as it is not accompanied by a willingness to confront war as war, to name its violence, and to build coalitions of naming and shaming. Without that, middle powers are neither middling nor powerful; they are trifling entities trapped in self-delusion. India illustrates this paradox particularly sharply. Even moderate calls for taking a stand or resisting a new imperial order are dismissed as moralism, when in reality, they reflect a wider and more intelligent understanding of prudence. The point is not about simply expressing an empty opinion on the war. The point is to confront the fact that this war risks global catastrophe, and it is the height of imprudence not to build coalitions to prevent it.Perhaps the central problem is that we are not fully grasping the nature of the catastrophe unfolding before us. This is not a world war in the traditional sense, but a global interconnected war, as Timothy Garton Ash aptly describes it, where theatres from Ukraine to Saudi Arabia, Israel to Iran, Ethiopia to the UAE, and even Pakistan to Afghanistan, Sudan to Yemen, are entwined. Every action in one theatre reverberates across the globe.you may likeIn this context, the US is governed not only by a regime that disregards international laws and norms but also by one willing to burn the house down if it cannot win. This is not only a domestic feature; it is mirrored in foreign policy. But this dynamic is not limited to the US. Israel, a major driver of regional war, has pursued the creation of an endless series of failed states as a strategic objective. Iran exhibits a strategic catastrophism. Meanwhile, Gulf states such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia were already engaging in catastrophic proxy conflicts in Sudan, Yemen, and Ethiopia, actively producing state failure.All of these actors display a willingness to legitimise any means necessary: The targeted killing of leaders, asymmetric warfare, and the bombing of civilian infrastructure and educational institutions. The full-scale horrors of this war are not confined to bombed cities or destroyed infrastructure; they are also manifest in profound psychological and social consequences. This war will heighten a global condition of suspicion and paranoia. The legitimisation of targeted assassinations, hitting water supplies, drones, and the spectres of asymmetric warfare will have catastrophic long-term consequences. Nuclear risks will intensify globally, while failed states multiply.In short, this is a war whose true devastation is as much psychological and institutional as it is physical. If democracy is anaesthetised in the face of those willing to burn the house down, as it appears to be the case in the US, it has already lost.The writer is contributing editor, The Indian Express