From Trump to Putin, the narratives leaders tell themselves shape global conflict – and the war in Iran shows the consequences when belief overrides reality.

If the worst calculations are correct – that it will take many years for Australia and the world to recover from the economic fallout of the US and Israeli war on Iran – then the US will have done more harm to the so-called free world than China or any other ‘unfriendly’ nation is ever likely to have done in the foreseeable future.

How did this happen? Why did this happen?

The stories that people and nations tell themselves have enormous consequences.

Vladimir Putin tells himself that the natural jurisdiction of the Russian communist party is the area that approximates to the old Soviet Union. Anything less than that is, in his story, a diminution of the rights and identity of the Russian people.

The Israeli Knesset, which is not the same as the worldwide Jewish diaspora, tells itself that Greater Israel is the whole land from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean with ‘buffer zones’ that occupy parts of southern Lebanon and Syria, possibly including the biblical ‘Transjordan’ which is part of Jordanian territory.

The story the Knesset tells itself is reinforced by far-right US Christians who hold enormous influence in the US administration, including the Secretary for War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. It is ironic that those telling this narrative see Israel as a pawn in a greater narrative of ‘Christian’ Armageddon. Joe Kent, the US counter terrorism official, has just resigned because he claims this story, this set of beliefs, has led the US into war with Iran.

The stories that Donald Trump tells himself, about himself, and the stories that he tells himself about the US place in the world when combined with the stories of who are the good people and who are the bad people, who are legitimate and who are not in the Middle East, makes for an incendiary situation.

The story that Trump tells himself about himself is that he is the most intelligent, the most successful, the most righteous, the most everything. It is this belief that enables him to belittle or punish any who do not bend to his will; they are at fault for not recognising his greatness and superiority.

The story Trump tells himself about the necessary supremacy of the US enables him to assert the dominance of the US, especially amongst those who historically have thought of themselves as allies. Imposing tariffs on countries under the false claim they have been trading unfairly is but a small example.

If the story you tell about yourself is untrue, and you act as if it is true, then the consequences which flow will range from mildly inconvenient to monumental. The war in Iran has all the hallmarks of monumental harm, brought about by ill-conceived actions with no thought given to the possible outcomes. This is not the first time. US wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, were similarly disastrous with insufficient thought given to consequences flowing from the action. Insufficient thought is tied to insufficient knowledge and understanding before intervention is undertaken. International law is created to protect countries from ill-conceived ventures into conflict. Acting as if the US and Israel live outside the requirements of international law is consequential.

The refusal of Britain, Germany, France and Australia to be drawn into this war is the right ground upon which to stand. But it begs the question: why do we still claim the US is our most important security partner? In my lifetime thousands of Australian lives have been lost or maimed through participation in US wars. Does hosting American bases on Australian soil make us more, or less secure? Why are we continuing to pursue the AUKUS agreement which seems to pour billions into US coffers and offers the meagre hope that in 20 or 30 years we might have a couple of submarines?

It is sadly the case that Australian culture wars are now being vigorously waged by splinter groups on the right. These are struggles for ownership of the dominant and formative national story. On the right of politics, loving Australia means barbecues, ANZAC traditions, the arrival of Captain Cook, putting Australia above international obligations, exploiting rather than conserving, exalting European identity above multi-national identity or first nation identity.

Consciously or unconsciously, individually or nationally, we act because of the narrative we believe to be true. Media business models are founded not on good journalism, but in promoting a self-interested narrative, with no obvious relationship to evidence.

Gaining or holding power is dependent upon controlling the narrative. Those who wish for harmony and concord within the nation and beyond, must pay attention to the narrative being told.