One of the strangest things about U.S. politics is this: many countries look for reasons first, then go to war. Washington often does the opposite. It decides on war first, then changes the justification as pressure rises and as it needs to “sell” the decision at home and abroad. We saw this in Iraq, and we see it again in other files today: one reason, then another, then a third “explanation”; while the core decision stays the same for years.
So why does the United States keep the weapon always on the table, and turn politics into a permanent stage for threats and escalation?
A big part of the answer was named by a U.S. president from inside the system itself: Dwight Eisenhower.
The Military-Industrial Complex: A President Warned About It—Then it became the Rule
In his 1961 farewell address, Eisenhower issued a clear warning about the “military-industrial complex”—a network of interests linking arms and ammunition companies, research and development centers, and influential actors inside Congress and the executive branch. The danger, he said, is not just having a lot of weapons. The danger is that this network can turn war from an exceptional political decision into a routine economic choice.
Simply put: when war becomes a “market”, peace becomes a “loss” for a whole sector that lives off contracts, budgets, and constant military development.
From Democratic Decision-Making to “Puppets on a Stage”
American democracy is marketed as a system of “checks and balances”: Congress oversees, the president is held accountable, courts are independent, and the press is strong. But many American debates argue that the military-industrial complex penetrates this system from the inside.
How?
Campaign financing: many politicians need major donors to reach office.
The revolving door: senior officials move from the Pentagon to arms companies and then back again, creating a tight circle of shared interests.
Conflicts of interest: when a decision-maker or their family owns shares in defense firms, increasing the defense budget becomes personally profitable.
The result is that the real question often shifts. Instead of “Do we need a war?” it becomes: “How much will we increase the Pentagon budget and who gets the contracts?”
READ: US spent $25B on Iran war as Pentagon seeks $1.5T budget
Military Keynesianism: When War becomes an Economic “Injection”
Here is the more dangerous idea: war is not only a security decision. Sometimes it is used as an economic tool. There is a tradition of thinking sometimes called “military Keynesianism”:
If Keynes argued that governments can revive a stagnant economy through public projects even through extreme examples such as digging, destroying, or rebuilding simply to create employment and circulate money. The extreme version says war itself becomes the largest public project:
destroy… then produce… then arm… then rebuild… then repeat.
This fits a well-known argument in some economic schools: capitalism is always searching for major engines that restart the machine when profits slow and investment weakens.
In a huge economy like the U.S., the arms industry becomes one of the strongest “engines” because it combines finance, research, industrial production, and near-constant demand.
Not only Arms Companies: “Brain Centers” that manufacture the Enemy
The network does not stop at factories and weapons. It also includes research and consulting institutions that shape how threats are defined: Who is the enemy? What is the next danger?
These institutions often appear neutral and academic. But in many U.S. critiques, they help produce the narrative that comes before the decision: label a country an existential threat, justify escalation, and open the way for larger budgets.
Wall Street as a Permanent Partner: Finance Profits from Fire
Alongside the military-industrial complex is another powerful machine: the financial complex, often summarized as “Wall Street”.
Wars create waves of speculation—energy prices, insurance, shipping, interest rates, futures contracts—huge profit zones for banks and investment firms. Arms companies also need financing and expansion, which brings the financial sector in as funder, partner, and beneficiary.
In other words: a war economy is not only a factory. It is a full system of funding, pricing, and profit.
READ: Trump faces intense pressure to end “costly” Iran war as unilateral victory plan considered
The Domestic Cost: Infrastructure Falls Behind, Budgets Never End
When “guns” take a larger share of resources, long-term investment in education, healthcare, and infrastructure declines. The paradox is that the United States, despite its power, faces growing criticism over weaknesses in basic infrastructure compared to other countries
So, the question is simple: if resources are massive, why don’t people feel them at home?
Critics of the “war economy” answer: because a large share of public money is constantly recycled into weapons and wars instead of long-term social investment. This brings back memories from 2018, when I visited the U.S. for an internship between Washington Dc and Manhattan, I was shocked with how bad and poor infrastructure found in a rich country called the USA.
When War Becomes a Way of Life
The real danger is not one specific war. It is the pattern: a pre-made decision, shifting justifications, a financing machine, an arms market, political pressure; then a new crisis is produced in the name of “national security”.
This is the core of Eisenhower’s warning: democracy can be gradually captured by a network of interests that sees war as opportunity and peace as a threat to profit.
And the question that must remain on the table is this:
If the military-industrial complex lives on wars; can American politics ever stop producing them? And under Trump’s return to office, will U.S. foreign policy restrain this machine — or exaggerate the very cycle of militarization, crisis, and profit that Eisenhower warned against?
OPINION: Hormuz is the war’s invoice—and Washington can’t pay it
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
