When Faith Becomes A Flag: The Dangers Of Religious Nationalism In Global Conflict
(ANALYSIS) In international conflicts, we often treat entire countries as if they share a single belief or intention. It makes it seem like all of America and Israel want to bomb Iran and Palestine, or that every Iranian threatens Israel and the U.S.
This “monolith” thinking distorts our responses and fuels misdirected anger. It divides ordinary people as observers and lets those in power claim to speak for entire nations, even when many disagree within their borders.
The idea that a nation speaks or acts as one is both incorrect and dangerous, especially during war, when governments often rely on nationalism and simplified narratives to justify military action at home and abroad.
READ: Why Some See An Ancient Biblical Enemy In Iran
We are aware of the ongoing tension between Israel and Iran, with the United States deeply involved. After briefly joining Israel in attacking Iran, U.S. President Donald Trump now claims the war is over. Yet tensions persist, and the so-called ceasefire appears fragile.
Israel’s assault on Gaza continues. In moments like this, taking sides is part of our freedom of conscience and expression, but such conflicts can create or deepen divisions if we fail to distinguish between the different forces and entities within each country.
Iran’s government is ruled by a tightly controlled clerical system with strong influence from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Its policies, especially towards Israel and the United States, are shaped by a political and military elite that is deeply suspicious of Western intervention and committed to projecting power in the region.
However, millions of Iranian citizens do not support these views. Young Iranians have repeatedly defied the government in protests, demanding more rights, transparency and freedom. In 2022, widespread demonstrations following the death of Mahsa Amini showed the gap between the regime’s decisions and public sentiment. To assume that the Iranian population supports every move its government makes in foreign affairs would be incorrect and unfair.
On the other side, Israel has a coalition government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and which includes far-right elements — including Religious Zionism, Otzma Yehudit and Noam — with openly aggressive positions toward Palestinians and Iran. But that coalition does not speak for all Israelis.
Israel has seen mass protests against judicial reforms, widespread dissent from military reservists, and a vocal civil society pushing back against policies seen as authoritarian or unjust. During the bombardment of Gaza, many Israelis took to the streets demanding a ceasefire, an end to the occupation, and a larger rethink of the state’s long-term security strategy. To see Israel as simply a war machine backed by its people erases the internal fights happening within its borders.
The United States, as a longstanding ally of Israel and an opponent of Iran’s government, often takes actions that are driven more by strategic calculations than by popular will. American administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have often chosen policies based on lobbying by interest groups, defence contractors or geopolitical thinking that has little to do with what the average American wants.
While the United States, a majority-Christian country, aligns with Israel, a Jewish state, in its hostility toward Shia-majority Iran, it was also seen in recent years as tacitly supporting Sunni-majority Azerbaijan in its military offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh, a region claimed by Armenia, which is widely recognised as the world’s first Christian nation.
It’s true that many Americans support Israel, but there is also a section, especially among younger people and progressives, who are sharply critical of unconditional military aid and U.S. backing of Israeli policies. Media institutions and academic spaces reflect this divide, with growing debate and pressure on elected leaders to rethink traditional alliances.
People should not allow governments, or other interest groups, to draw a single straight line between national identity and state policy. When political leaders talk about “we,” they often mean “their circle of power” — not the full diversity of opinion and experience within the country.
Many governments, especially during conflict, prefer the idea of the nation as a single block because it allows them to suppress dissent as treason and present themselves as the only legitimate voice. Further, it is also aimed at shaping international perception. By projecting unity to the outside world, governments seek to simplify diplomacy, justify aggressive actions and claim moral clarity in global forums where complexity is often inconvenient.
Ordinary people must learn to ask who is speaking and whose interests are being served. Is it an elected leader, the military, the intelligence establishment, defence contractors, media outlets, or those advancing larger “strategic” goals such as national security, economic growth or regional dominance?
As far as these strategic interests are concerned, they are often presented as inevitable and beyond question. This creates the belief that some nations will always be in conflict, regardless of who governs them. In truth, these so-called interests are not shaped by nature necessarily but are often constructed and sustained by institutions, elites and historical choices that can be challenged.
For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 was a direct confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, two superpowers at the time with sharply opposing strategic goals, each armed with nuclear weapons and on the brink of war.
The Soviet Union had installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, near the U.S. coast. From its perspective, this move was a strategic counterbalance to U.S. missiles placed in Turkey and Italy, near Soviet borders. Both sides had strong domestic and military pressure to act aggressively, and for nearly two weeks, the world watched as events edged towards nuclear catastrophe.
However, despite their ideological hostility and internal hawks, U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev eventually stepped back and chose negotiation over escalation. They struck a deal – the Soviets would withdraw their missiles from Cuba, and the U.S. would agree to remove its missiles from Turkey.
Neither side achieved all of its aims, and both paid political costs. But the decision to compromise, in spite of the pressure to “stand firm,” avoided a nuclear war and opened channels for future communication, including the establishment of a direct “hotline” between Washington and Moscow.
Regardless of the loud narratives in the media, on social media or in everyday conversations, we must recognise that for the political elite, a monolith is easier to mobilize than a democracy with disagreement and dissent. We should resist such simplification. A country is not its government. A policy does not reflect the will of an entire people.
Whatever one’s position in a conflict, certain actions cannot be justified. Targeting civilians, destroying essential services, blocking aid, using civilian areas for military purposes or punishing entire populations for the acts of a few are all violations of international law and human conscience. These acts are wrong, regardless of who commits them, and acknowledging that is necessary for any meaningful pursuit of peace or justice.
This article has been published in partnership with Newsreel Asia.
Vishal Arora is an independent journalist based in New Delhi, India, who covers Asia and beyond. He serves as editor of @Newsreel_Asia and is a board member of The Media Project. He’s written for many outlets including The Wall Street Journal, The Diplomat and The Caravan.