When Wars Lose Their “Why”

Modern conflicts are fought as much through narrative as they are through force. The physical battlefield is where weapons, missiles, and tactical capabilities determine outcomes in the most immediate sense. Alongside the physical battlefield exists the narrative battlefield, where governments and political actors compete to shape how the conflict is understood, defining its meaning and legitimacy. It is here that control over the ‘why’ behind the destruction of war is contested. Narratives give legitimacy to the use of force and makes the human cost appear justifiable. 

The struggle is not only over territory or tactical gains, but also over perception. Governments frame the use of force, define their objectives, and seek to persuade domestic and international audiences that their actions are righteous and that no viable alternatives exist. In many ways, this reflects a modern contest over the principles of ‘Just War’: who has legitimate cause to use force, whether that force is proportionate, and whether it is perceived as politically and morally necessary. Narratives do not merely justify military action, they also constrain the range of actions that can be publicly defended.

Canada & the War Narrative 

Canada has historically recognized the importance of legitimacy in armed conflict. During the 2003 Iraq War, Ottawa declined to participate not because it lacked military capability or alliance commitments, but because the justification for the intervention failed to gain broad international backing, particularly in the absence of a clear United Nations mandate. The debate extended beyond military considerations and became a question of legality, necessity, and political credibility.

These same dynamics are visible in the current conflict with Iran. While the United States continues to promote tactical achievements and military effects, in part because they provide visible and measurable indicators of progress, it has been far less clear in defining the broader political objectives of the campaign and what strategic outcome those actions are intended to achieve. 

Tactical successes are increasingly being presented by the Trump administration as measures of strategic success, rather than a means to achieve clearly defined political objectives, weakening the link between military action and broader strategy. When President Trump claims that “90% of Iran’s missiles and launchers have been knocked out”, the emphasis is placed on visible and quantifiable battlefield effects rather than on explaining the broader political objectives of the campaign, whether it be deterrence, regime change, coercion, or long-term regional stability. 

This narrative gap is not limited to one actor: the United States, Israel, and Iran are advancing competing narratives shaped by differing objectives. The United States has alternated between narratives centered on deterrence, coercion and pressure on the Iranian leadership, Israel is focusing on degrading Iranian capabilities, including its nuclear program, while Iran is framing the conflict as resistance to outsider aggression through legitimate self-defence. These competing narratives increasingly rely on depictions of destruction and suffering, reinforcing cycles of escalation rather than clarifying an end state. 

When War Narratives Shift Faster Than Strategy

In modern conflicts, the line between peace and war is often blurry, and so is the distinction between success and failure. When success is not clearly defined in terms the public can understand, what remains visible is the human cost. Tactical-level operations have produced significant suffering on all sides, but without a narrative that explains their purpose, these actions carry little significance. 

In some cases, this ambiguity is not accidental. Governments may deliberately avoid clearly defining political end states in order to preserve strategic flexibility, limit political risk, or maintain domestic support as conflicts evolve. Tactical achievements and destruction metrics are often easier to communicate to public audiences than uncertain long-term political objectives, particularly in conflicts where escalation, regime change, or prolonged regional instability remain politically sensitive outcomes.

Without a coherent narrative, military action risks losing its legitimacy, making the resulting human cost increasingly difficult to justify. This lack of clarity also creates space for adversaries to exploit the resulting moral ambiguity for their own advantage. Civilian casualties, strikes against infrastructure, and the absence of clearly defined political objectives allow Iran to promote narratives of victimization and resistance, thereby reinforcing support for the Iranian regime while challenging the legitimacy of U.S. actions internationally. Public perceptions of the current conflict are also influenced by the legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan, where Western narratives surrounding liberation, stability, and international security gradually lost credibility as the wars became prolonged and their political objectives less clear.

These credibility challenges are further complicated by the fact that war narratives are often directed at different audiences and may contradict one another. Internationally, U.S. military action is framed as limited, defensive, and necessary to deter Iranian aggression and preserve regional stability. Domestically, the same actions are presented as demonstrations of strength, retaliation, and decisive military dominance. At various points, U.S. officials have also alternated between describing the campaign as deterrence, pre-emption, regional stabilization, counter-proliferation, and regime pressure, creating ambiguity not necessarily about the existence of political objectives, but about how these objectives relate to one another and what broader strategic end state they are ultimately intended to achieve.

Why Narrative Matters

It has now been over two months since the start of the conflict, yet there is still no clearly articulated end state. What does victory look like? What conditions would trigger a withdrawal of US forces? How are escalation dynamics being managed? While operational secrecy is inherent to warfare, there are ordinarily indications that these questions have been considered. At a minimum, the public can reasonably expect an explanation for why their sons and daughters are being asked to risk their lives, and why more than $25 billion has been committed to the conflict to date.

In the absence of a clearly articulated end state, military action risks becoming disconnected from a clear political purpose. Decapitation warfare tactics may create short-term disruption, but their strategic impact is limited when used in isolation. Targeting leadership does not, on its own, constitute a coherent approach to producing political change that is both favorable to US interests and durable over the long-term. 

Such attacks may, however, reinforce anti-Western sentiment and strengthen cohesion around the existing regime. In this context, whether Iran was close to becoming a nuclear power, one of many stated drivers of the conflict, now matters less, as the conflict is likely to have reinforced Iran’s determination to pursue its nuclear ambitions. 

Legitimacy and the Use of Force

In conflict, civilian casualties are often framed as collateral damage—the unfortunate consequences of military action. Death, destruction, and suffering, including among non-combatants, are an inextricable part of war. While the International Law of Armed Conflicts compels militaries to minimize civilian loss of life as much as possible, it recognizes that such harm may occur in pursuit of legitimate military objectives. However, harm must be tied to a clear and compelling purpose, such as deterring future attacks, degrading military capabilities, preventing escalation, or achieving broader political and strategic objectives. Without an explanation of what it is collateral to, civilian harm becomes harder to justify, raising questions not only of legality, but of legitimacy.

Another issue, widely debated in the media, is the narrative around pre-emptive strikes. The legality of such actions depends on the immediacy of the threat and the necessity of action. In the Iranian conflict, both sides are framing their actions as self-defence. The question becomes no longer who acted first, but who succeeds in defining the legitimacy of the conflict and the justification for the use of force.

The apparent ambiguity points to a broader problem: despite multiple opportunities to establish a coherent narrative, it remains undefined. The anti-regime demonstrations in Iran in January could have provided a narrative centered on internal dissent and the legitimacy of the Iranian regime itself, yet this opportunity was neither clearly defined nor consistently communicated.

Narrative Constraints

Operating on the narrative battlefield requires congruence between words and actions. When that congruence breaks down, it erodes the credibility of any narrative advanced by the state. This tension is particularly visible in the targeting of critical civilian infrastructure. Subject to the same level of scrutiny under international law as the loss of civilian life, such actions are inherently difficult to justify within any coherent narrative. Claims regarding a U.S. strike on the desalination plant on Qeshm Island are likely to draw widespread condemnation, reinforcing contradictions in the broader narrative. 

This suggests the issue may not be a failure to articulate a narrative, but a deliberate choice to avoid the constraints one would impose. A coherent narrative constrains what can be done and how it can be justified, reducing operational flexibility and making inconsistencies more visible.

A coherent narrative depends on alignment between partners, in both word and deed. Disagreements between the United States and Israel over how to end the conflict, from missile limits to sanctions relief, expose competing objectives within the same coalition. These fractures blur the campaign’s purpose, weaken the credibility of official messaging, and make sustained domestic and international support harder to maintain.

Taken together, these dynamics expose a central vulnerability: without a coherent narrative, even coordinated military action can lose meaning. Tactical success alone cannot sustain legitimacy. When the “why” of a war is unclear, its costs become harder to justify, its objectives harder to defend, and its outcomes harder to define. Over time, the absence of narrative coherence does more than weaken support, it reshapes how the war itself is understood, turning even apparent success into something that looks, and feels, like failure.