In Stanley Kubrick “Dr. Strengov”, the nuclear courtyard does not appear from chaos, but rather the accuracy of the system designed to ensure the system. The film embodies how ideology, automation, and loyalty to procedures are intersecting to produce the disaster.
General Riber’s obsession with the theory of “the infiltration of the Communists through the water of water” launches a series of events that reveals the fragility of the logic behind the idea of ”confirmed mutual destruction.” As for the bureaucrats in the war room, they keep the movement of the movement due to the measures, unable to stop the path towards the annihilation.
The film reveals the absurdity of these doctrines when the Soviets reveal the presence of the Secret Day of the Planet’s Secret Resurrection, if they are attacked. However, being a secret from the ground up up as a deterrent. Here the contradiction lies: it is a rational weapon that it guarantees the end of the world, and is not rational at the same time as it eliminates the space of human rule and moral accountability.
It is noteworthy that this machine never appears in the movie, but rather it is hurt and described without seeing it. And its same absence is the significance: deterrence is not achieved through the statement, but rather through suggestion.
This anomalous symmetry was repeated in the twelve -day confrontation between Iran and Israel, which started on June 9 after Israel launched unjustified attacks on Iran. Although nuclear weapons were not used, the conflict took place with a constant threat of regional escalation with global consequences.
The Cold War absurds that Kubrick mocked in “Dr. Strengov” has evolved into a malicious pattern in the context of contemporary wars.
It was one day theatrical in his madness, that is, the theory of deterrence, it became automatic, algorithm, and calm, penetrating into the regimes that govern the military action today. Thus, just having these weapons has become a new form of threat. Creating is no longer a screaming, but a whisper hears the opponent well.
Israel entered the war without a clear exit strategy, which is largely dependent on the assumption of the intervention of the United States. While the initial strikes focused on nuclear sites, it expanded by June 23 to include non -nuclear targets, such as prisons, in reference to a broader intention to destabilize or perhaps the overthrow of the Iranian regime.
Dr. Strengov is ridiculed by the threat of nuclear deterrence, as the annihilation does not arise from chaos, but rather from a cool, systematic logic of structures created to preserve the system. The film reveals how the ideology, technology and bureaucratic obedience to create a disaster not through madness, but through an elaborate design.
As for the language that immersed the Iran-Israel crisis such as “defending the homeland”, “eliminating threats” and “divine justice”, it is saturated with moral divorcees. Due to the historical nature of this war, these slogans remained repeated over contracts, and return to the surface at every severe tension.
Contemporary wars show that they are no longer just a clash of decisions, but rather a convergence of regulations: ideological, technological, and psychological, all move with momentum that does not care about the suffering of man.
As in Dr. Strengov, the human will seemed secondary in front of the logic of the systems that were already launched. The film reminds us that “the art of deterrence is to sow fear in the mind of the enemy of the attack.”
It is, above all, a theatrical play, is not a matter of scientific accuracy as much as it is a psychological dance. In this horrific dance, what matters is not the same weapon, but the shadow that it throws on the enemy’s imagination.
The necessity built on imagination
The theory of ideology of the Marxist philosopher Slavoi Gigic, a beneficial lens here, provides a beneficial lens here; Conflicts of this type are not only fought, but it is inevitable. Gigik believes that ideology not only blocks reality, but also to provide crises as internal necessities.
“The function of ideology”, as he writes, “is not in providing false images of reality, but rather in presenting the reality itself, necessarily based on a specific imagination.”
This is what happened in Iran-Israel’s conflict: strategic decisions were formulated, not as circumstantial options, but as a “rational” path that is only possible within the previously constructive ideological narratives.
Israel’s war with Iran can be seen as a direct escalation of its broader military campaign after October 7. After targeting Iranian -backed groups such as “Hezbollah” in Lebanon and “Ansar Allah” in Yemen, Israel moved from confronting the agents to confronting Iran itself.
However, the essence of the conflict is deeper and far. Iran has repeatedly called for the removal of Israel, while Israeli leaders have always portrayed Iran as an existential threat. These were not just geopolitical positions or rhetorical phrases, but rather ideological structures that transformed the war into a commitment to me.
This reflects the “Strengov” vision of a world in which the war machine has become the only language available, and any talk otherwise is a betrayal of the logic of the system.
Jejik’s insight into the “symbolic effectiveness” of ideological systems reveals a lot here; The ideology remains even if no one believes in it as long as everyone behaves as if they believed.
In the confrontation that lasted twelve days, the two countries led the dance of the escalation, not because they necessarily wanted the war, but rather because the regimes that they built imposed this. Like the Judgment Day device, these systems could not be disabled without appearing a weakness. Mutual destruction has not been just a possibility, but a logical end.
This reminds Iran’s reprisal attacks in April 2024 on Israel, in response to the bombing of its consulate in Syria, an escalation that was most likely to ignite a comprehensive war.
Pixies and notifications instead of meat and sadness
Gigik believes that true terror does not lie in the irrationality but rather in the hyperplasia: when madness is hidden in the dress of the strategy.
As for the philosopher Pyong-Chaoul Han, it provides a complementary perspective by referring to the abstraction of violence in the digital war. It describes the “disappearance of the other” in the digital battlefield: where the conflict becomes a matter of pixels and notifications instead of meat and sadness.
During the last confrontation between Iran and Israel, most of the world’s circulating photos were screen shots: missile arches, infrared targets, protected warheads, and sterile pain -free. The dead became just numbers in statistics.
As Han warns, the more virtual war is, the greater erosion of sympathy. The war becomes simulation, and the viewers are spectators, instead of terrified witnesses.
Thus, the twelve days war was broken not only on the ground, but on screens, social media tweets, military leadership paintings, and mobile news headlines. The murder took place with high accuracy, while the sadness was not seen. The goals were “removed” no “killing”. The buildings collapse over families, but the public’s awareness of engineering patterns of destruction without a human context.
Han warns that this collective anesthesia leads to a “full control community”, where the war can continue without popular resistance, because its moral cost has been emptied of its meaning. And the loss is not in life alone, but in the same meaning.
New Judgment Day devices
Social psychology explains how the division of groups leads to “us” and “they” to deepen the collective irrationality. In wartime, the tendency to self -preference and the abstraction of the other of its humanity intensifies.
During the mutual strikes between Israel and Iran, every media outlet was victims of its victims, and marginalized the enemy victims. The tragedy became tribal. The sympathy was not absent, but it was selective.
This mutual resonance of deafness allowed the justification of violence calmly, not through a crude hatred, but rather by normalizing indifference.
Here we get to the most darker question of Gigic: What happens when we learn to coexist with tampering? When ideology convinces us that a plane strike on a second child is “unfortunate but necessary”?
As the intelligence of machinery increases, humans seem more willing to delegate morals. Augmented targeting with artificial intelligence, predictive revenge protocols, automated objection systems, all of these are the new Days of Resurrection.
It does not require hatred to work. Rather, you need indifference. This is the fruit that the digital war is grown.
In “Dr. Strengov” there is a famous phrase: “I learned not to worry and love the bomb.” Today, we are not satisfied with her love, but we turned it into a game, and we spread it, and we gathered it. We no longer fear the bomb as we fear the appearance of the weak.
The paradox of modern war is that the more we have the greater power, the more fragile. In this weakness, we cling to the illusion that the destruction is not only inevitable, but also carries a meaning.
The Iran-Israel crisis, despite its shortness, gives us a terrifying glimpse of a future in which the war becomes automated, the ideology is ritual, and sympathy is a forgotten impact.
If Jigik reveals how to justify the ideology of annihilation, and he exposes how digitization hides this annihilation, then social psychology shows how collective dynamics keep it continuing.
Together, they provide a warning: When we do not return, we see others as human beings, but as a necessary victims in a mighty universal logic, the Day of Resurrection does not become something we fear; It is something we live in.
The opinions in the article do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al -Jazeera.