Dual-use warfare: The military-industrial complex is out in the open now
Gift this article
The United States, the very country whose former president and war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower first warned against the rise of a 'military-industrial complex," has since become its most active architect, user and beneficiary.
The United States, the very country whose former president and war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower first warned against the rise of a 'military-industrial complex," has since become its most active architect, user and beneficiary.
This complex has matured into a diffused but dominant global operating system. Its power is not exercised through the use of combat aircraft and missiles alone, but through procurement cycles, legislative influence, job guarantees and an expanding web of strategic dependencies that now tie national security to economic continuity.
Also Read: Mint Quick Edit | The US blasts in: A forever war in Iran?
In West Asia, US strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure mark a dramatic escalation, with American forces joining what had been a bilateral Iran-Israel conflict. The US has entered a volatile theatre at a moment when restraint might have offered it greater leverage. The move could widen the conflict zone and deepen Washington's entanglement in a dynamic where deterrence, diplomacy and industrial interests have become indistinguishable.
The US made a spectacular display in Iran of its most advanced bombers and bunker buster bombs, but Iran's response of missiles fired at Israel would suggest that Israeli demand for interceptor ammunition to defend itself is unlikely to flag. Costly hostilities mean that this is not only about geopolitics, but economics, with the US ready to keep its key ally in West Asia well supplied with military hardware.
American action over the weekend underscores the dual imperatives that shape power today: the projection of strength abroad and preservation of influence at home. Each military provocation feeds a feedback loop that rarely ends in resolution. Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz and target US assets in the region is alarming but unsurprising. Any aggression displayed by Tehran triggers a chain of responses: from security alerts and military deployments to insurance recalibrations and, ultimately, arms-replenishment contracts. In such a cycle, while conflict may not be deemed desirable for its own sake, its economic value is obvious.
The US has long used military force not only to pursue security objectives, but also to safeguard its access to resources such as oil, gas and rare minerals. From the first Gulf War to interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, US military engagements and regime change pursuits have reinforced a domestic defence sector that contributes directly to GDP, sustains high-value employment and drives technological advances. Far from being scaled back after the Cold War ended, America's military-industrial capacity has been kept in top condition. This assures the US supremacy in any armed conflict as well as leadership of the geopolitically controlled market for armaments.
Also Read: Israel-Iran conflict: Echoes of history haunt West Asia
The Iran war provides a fresh opportunity to recast economic vulnerabilities as strategic necessities. At home, the US could soon reframe its vast debt pile and fiscal fragility as a burden imposed by its responsibility to keep the world safe. That others must 'pay' for security is a theme that Washington has been harping on. Enhanced defence budgets among its allies, of course, would serve American arms producers well.
The military-industrial complex is no longer a Western monopoly. Its logic has been embraced by other powers. In China, defence manufacturing serves both as a technological frontier and employment engine. In Israel, defence innovation underwrites global exports. For Iran, asymmetric warfare enables regime resilience and circumvents international isolation. So long as the normalization of long-term hostility serves industrial interests, big or small, arms-makers have no incentive to let stability take hold.
Today's global scramble for rare earths mirrors the 20th century's oil rush, but with digital dominance as an underlying motive.
Iran is rapidly emerging as a significant global player in the field of strategic minerals. In April, it commissioned its first monazite-based rare-earth pilot plant in Abbas Abad, capable of processing 17 rare earth elements with domestic technology. The country is estimated to hold about 85 million tonnes of rare-earth reserves. It reportedly has vast deposits of lithium, cobalt, copper and bauxite. Preliminary exploration suggests Iran may host the world's second-largest lithium field and one of West Asia's largest porphyry copper reserves. These resources are vital to consumer electronics, defence systems and clean-tech initiatives. Their strategic value places Iran's mineral wealth at the centre of geopolitical contention.
In this context, the language of peace often sounds performative. Institutions like the United Nations are structurally locked out. This may remain the case so long as the economics of deterrence outweighs the ethics of diplomacy.
At times, military action also has domestic political utility. The optics of a victory can eclipse economic anxiety, while strategic assertion tends to find more public support than strategic restraint. This yields the absurdity of aggression cloaked in words of diplomacy and peace. That Pakistan, long accused of abetting terrorism, would nominate US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize reveals the performative farce all this has become.
The military-industrial complex no longer hides in the shadows. It is embedded in legislation, budgets and political game plans. In the business of war, peace isn't just inconvenient, it's a threat.
The author is a corporate advisor and author of 'Family and Dhanda'. Topics You May Be Interested In
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
France condemns 'despicable' Hamas hostage video
France Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot on Saturday denounced as "despicable" videos of Israeli hostages held in Gaza posted by Hamas's armed wing and by another Palestinian Islamist group. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot looks on, during a press conference at the Foreign Ministry in Nicosia, Cyprus July 31, 2025.(Reuters) "Despicable, unbearable images of the Israeli hostages held for 666 days in Gaza by Hamas," Barrot wrote in a post on X "They must be freed, without conditions," he added. "Hamas must be disarmed and excluded from ruling Gaza." He also called for humanitarian aid to be supplied to the people of Gaza in massive quantities. The armed wing of Palestinian militant group Hamas released a minute-long video Friday of an Israeli hostage held in Gaza looking weak and malnourished, inside a narrow concrete tunnel. On Thursday, the armed wing of the Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad published a video of an Israeli-German hostage abducted during Hamas's October 2023 attack on Israel. The release of the videos has sparked outrage in Israel. Israel's top general, army chief of staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, warned Saturday there would be no respite in fighting in Gaza if negotiations fail to quickly secure the release of hostages. Of the 251 hostages taken during the Hamas October 7, 2023 attack, 49 are still being held in Gaza, including 27 the Israeli military says are dead. Hamas's 2023 attack resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, mostly civilians, according to a tally based on official figures. A total of 898 Israeli soldiers have also been killed since ground troops were sent into Gaza, according to the military. Israel's campaign in Gaza has killed at least 60,332 people in Gaza, mostly civilians, according to figures from the Hamas-run territory's health ministry, deemed reliable by the UN.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Mathura Sridharan trolled for 'bindi', Ohio AG says, 'If her name or complexion bother you...'
Mathura Sridharan was trolled for her Indian-origin after her name was announced as Ohio's Solicitor General. Indian-origin Mathura Sridharan was appointed as Ohio's 12th solicitor general, inviting the wrath of online trolls who questioned why a 'non-US-origin' person was not picked for the post. Sridharan's LinkedIn went viral as critics questioned her credibility -- forcing Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost to issue a clarification, or a clapback at the trolls. Dave Yost, who announced Mathura's promotion, said Mathura is wrongly being portrayed as a non-American. "A few commenters have asserted incorrectly that Mathura is not American. She is a United States citizen, married to a US citizen, and the child of naturalized US citizens," he said. "If her name or her complexion bother you, the problem is not with her or her appointment," he added. — DaveYostOH (@DaveYostOH) "Mathura is brilliant… she won her argument at SCOTUS last year. Both the SGs she worked under (Flowers & Gaiser) recommended her. I told her when I originally hired her I needed her to argue with me. She does… All the time! Excited to promote her. She will serve Ohio well," Yost wrote. Yost's clapback also met trolling as people commented that she is not "American-American". "Is she a Christian? That's the biggest factor that concerns me. Based on the bindi on her forehead, I worry she is not," one wrote. "Another American job… given away to foreigners," another wrote. "She's Indian. They all have a loyalty first to other Indians. horrible pick. Totally un-American. the GOP is pathetic," a third user wrote. "No one with the last name 'Sridharan' fought in the US Civil War. She's not an American," another wrote. Before joining the Ohio Solicitor's Office, Mathura clerked for Judge Steven J. Menashi of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Judge Deborah A. Batts of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. She holds a Juris Doctor from New York University School of Law, a Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering & Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as a Bachelor's Degree in Economics and in Electrical Engineering & Computer Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
Trump's Tariffs Leave A Lot Of Losers. But Even Winners Will Pay A Price
President Donald Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers - from small, poor countries like Laos and Algeria to wealthy US trading partners like Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty taxes - tariffs - on the products they export to the United States starting Aug 7. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that caved to Trump's demands - and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run, even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies. "In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House, Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. "The biggest winner is Trump," said Alan Wolff, a former US trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization. "He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded - dramatically.'' Everything goes back to what Trump calls "Liberation Day'' - April 2 - when the president announced "reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% "baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs, all of which are now being challenged in court. Trump retreated temporarily after his Liberation Day announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually, some of them did, caving to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs for the privilege of continuing to sell into the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States, up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The US demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the UK for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted US tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low single-digit rates they paid last year, but lower than the tariffs he was threatening (30% on the EU and 25% on Japan). Also, cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while the Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt. "20% from the beginning has not been our goal, we hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate," Taiwan's president Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done there. Countries that didn't knuckle under - and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath - got hit harder. Even some of the poor were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600, versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial for trying to overturn his electoral defeat in 2022. Never mind that the US has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on longstanding US ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax, even higher than the 31% Trump originally announced on April 2. "The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington'' to make a deal, said Wolff, now senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his Liberation Day tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the US Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wound its way through the legal system, and may likely end up at the US Supreme Court. In a hearing on Thursday, the judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded sceptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. "If (the tariffs) get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Trump portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are paid by import companies in the US who try to pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits, or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and US businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike, Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker have all hiked prices due to US tariffs "This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,'' Appleton said. "Sneakers, knapsacks ... your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles, are going to go up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average US tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. And that will impose a $2,400 cost on the average household, the lab estimates. "The US consumer's a big loser, Wolff said.
