The Trillion Dollar War Machine That Barreled Toward Iran

Source: The New Republic · Bias: Left

Summary

Donald Trump campaigned against “endless wars.” Yet in late February, he launched a war against Iran that has already killed over one thousand people, including at least 175 in a strike on a girls’ elementary school. It is also burning through staggering sums of public money. Early estimates suggest the war could cost taxpayers between $1 billion to $2 billion a day. The first two days of strikes alone consumed $5.6 billion in munitions, raising alarm among lawmakers about depleted stockpiles and the mounting financial toll of another Middle Eastern war with no end in sight. For decades, the United States has pursued “security” with bombs, missiles, and Pentagon budget increases, often with disastrous results. In The Trillion Dollar War Machine, foreign policy analysts William Hartung and Ben Freeman argue that this pattern is the result of a vast, entrenched military-industrial complex that has grown richer, more politically powerful, and more deeply embedded in American life over time. Since World War II, the U.S. has built a sprawling permanent war economy that links weapons manufacturers, lobbyists, think tanks, politicians, Hollywood, universities, the video game industry, and, increasingly, Silicon Valley tech companies. The result, Hartung and Freeman contend, is a system that pushes the country toward war while draining resources from urgent needs at home.At a moment when the United States once again finds itself in a costly and escalating conflict in the Middle East, their argument carries renewed urgency. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, Hartung and I spoke about who stands to profit from a war with Iran, how militarism has seeped into American politics and culture, and what it would take to build something like a peace movement powerful enough to confront it.Indigo Olivier: If Americans want to understand why the United States seems perpetually drawn into new conflicts—from Iraq to Afghanistan to now Iran—what is the single most important structural factor that they should be paying attention to?William Hartung: Our elected officials are almost de facto lobbyists for this industry because they benefit from campaign contributions, for catering to contractors in their states, almost like servicing the arms industry instead of servicing us. That means there’s not real debate on almost anything, but there’s a lot of bragging about steering money to one’s state, or defending a dysfunctional weapon built in one’s state.There’s misguided ideology and American exceptionalism, about how the United States should dominate the globe. But I think that the money part is another obstacle to putting that aside and thinking about what defense would be versus dominance.I.O.: Who is most likely to benefit from war with Iran?W.H.: I think it’ll be broad. In the short term, it’ll be the munitions companies, which are already asking for all kinds of special favors because [the U.S. has] been, you know, consuming at large quantities for Ukraine and Israel and so forth. It’s yet another sort of ongoing war where they’re going to be using steady quantities. The level of the stockpiles is classified, but people who have been there say it is indeed low at this point because they used up a lot of the stocks that are sitting around in Ukraine. They have to build stuff, and the contracts will flow to these various companies.I.O.: You write that the “war machine” today is far bigger than the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned about. What’s changed since then?W.H.: Part of it is the money we spend now is almost twice what we spent when Eisenhower gave his speech, adjusted for inflation. I think also, once they got over the so-called Vietnam syndrome in the 1990s, the buildup has been pretty relentless. The first 10 years after 9/11, Pentagon spending went up every year, which had never happened before. Also, I think, they’ve de-emphasized other tools of foreign policy, diplomacy, foreign aid. They’re making a big bet on weapons, even though they have not been able to really succeed in Iraq or Afghanistan, despite over-matching the folks that are fighting. And then I think the lobbies are more intense because in the ’90s a lot of these companies merged into gigantic companies.Lockheed Martin gets $40 or $50 billion a year from the Pentagon. Some years, it’s bigger than the State Department budget. So they’ve got a lot of money. They’re spread all over the country, so members [of Congress] don’t want to vote against jobs in their district.There’s only been a handful of members of Congress who have stood up—[Representatives] Ro Khanna, Mark Pocan, [Senator] Bernie Sanders—but they don’t have anything approaching a coalition to turn this thing back.I.O.: One of the most striking sections in your introduction links militarism to everyday culture—sports, video games, Hollywood, and universities.

Related Coverage

More Headlines From March 13, 2026

arallaxNews.io
The Trillion Dollar War Machine That Barreled Toward Iran
The New Republic

The Trillion Dollar War Machine That Barreled Toward Iran

Left

Donald Trump campaigned against “endless wars.” Yet in late February, he launched a war against Iran that has already killed over one thousand people, including at least 175 in a strike on a girls’ elementary school. It is also burning through staggering sums of public money. Early estimates suggest the war could cost taxpayers between $1 billion to $2 billion a day. The first two days of strikes alone consumed $5.6 billion in munitions, raising alarm among lawmakers about depleted stockpiles and the mounting financial toll of another Middle Eastern war with no end in sight. For decades, the United States has pursued “security” with bombs, missiles, and Pentagon budget increases, often with disastrous results. In The Trillion Dollar War Machine, foreign policy analysts William Hartung and Ben Freeman argue that this pattern is the result of a vast, entrenched military-industrial complex that has grown richer, more politically powerful, and more deeply embedded in American life over time. Since World War II, the U.S. has built a sprawling permanent war economy that links weapons manufacturers, lobbyists, think tanks, politicians, Hollywood, universities, the video game industry, and, increasingly, Silicon Valley tech companies. The result, Hartung and Freeman contend, is a system that pushes the country toward war while draining resources from urgent needs at home.At a moment when the United States once again finds itself in a costly and escalating conflict in the Middle East, their argument carries renewed urgency. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, Hartung and I spoke about who stands to profit from a war with Iran, how militarism has seeped into American politics and culture, and what it would take to build something like a peace movement powerful enough to confront it.Indigo Olivier: If Americans want to understand why the United States seems perpetually drawn into new conflicts—from Iraq to Afghanistan to now Iran—what is the single most important structural factor that they should be paying attention to?William Hartung: Our elected officials are almost de facto lobbyists for this industry because they benefit from campaign contributions, for catering to contractors in their states, almost like servicing the arms industry instead of servicing us. That means there’s not real debate on almost anything, but there’s a lot of bragging about steering money to one’s state, or defending a dysfunctional weapon built in one’s state.There’s misguided ideology and American exceptionalism, about how the United States should dominate the globe. But I think that the money part is another obstacle to putting that aside and thinking about what defense would be versus dominance.I.O.: Who is most likely to benefit from war with Iran?W.H.: I think it’ll be broad. In the short term, it’ll be the munitions companies, which are already asking for all kinds of special favors because [the U.S. has] been, you know, consuming at large quantities for Ukraine and Israel and so forth. It’s yet another sort of ongoing war where they’re going to be using steady quantities. The level of the stockpiles is classified, but people who have been there say it is indeed low at this point because they used up a lot of the stocks that are sitting around in Ukraine. They have to build stuff, and the contracts will flow to these various companies.I.O.: You write that the “war machine” today is far bigger than the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned about. What’s changed since then?W.H.: Part of it is the money we spend now is almost twice what we spent when Eisenhower gave his speech, adjusted for inflation. I think also, once they got over the so-called Vietnam syndrome in the 1990s, the buildup has been pretty relentless. The first 10 years after 9/11, Pentagon spending went up every year, which had never happened before. Also, I think, they’ve de-emphasized other tools of foreign policy, diplomacy, foreign aid. They’re making a big bet on weapons, even though they have not been able to really succeed in Iraq or Afghanistan, despite over-matching the folks that are fighting. And then I think the lobbies are more intense because in the ’90s a lot of these companies merged into gigantic companies.Lockheed Martin gets $40 or $50 billion a year from the Pentagon. Some years, it’s bigger than the State Department budget. So they’ve got a lot of money. They’re spread all over the country, so members [of Congress] don’t want to vote against jobs in their district.There’s only been a handful of members of Congress who have stood up—[Representatives] Ro Khanna, Mark Pocan, [Senator] Bernie Sanders—but they don’t have anything approaching a coalition to turn this thing back.I.O.: One of the most striking sections in your introduction links militarism to everyday culture—sports, video games, Hollywood, and universities.

Read Full Story at Source