In recent months, the drums of war have started beating once again in Washington. This time, however, the noise comes not from the front lines, but from boardrooms, lobbying corridors and the heart of an invisible yet relentless power struggle.
A critical conflict is unfolding not between the U.S. and Iran, but between two rival power blocs within the U.S. itself. On one side stands the Pentagon, advocating strategic caution and increasingly aligning with President Donald Trump. On the other side is a powerful alliance of defense industry lobbies, pro-Israel actors and rising private sector forces.
The arms lobby and private capital feed not only on increased defense spending but also on the economic opportunities that war presents. Senator Lindsey Graham has long been one of the most loyal champions of this lobby. Since the Iraq War, he has served as a political emissary for defense giants like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. His rhetoric today mirrors the past: “U.S. deterrence is only possible through resolve.” But behind this call for resolve lies a multi-billion-dollar procurement pipeline.
Following the U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan facilities on June 22, 2025, the Pentagon attempted to frame the narrative. Department of Defense spokesperson Pete Hegseth stated, “This mission is not about regime change ... It was a precision strike aimed at the nuclear program.” Gen. Dan Caine, chair of the Joint Chiefs, added, “Our B2 mission inflicted severe damage, but it is too early to fully assess the impact.” These statements reflect the Pentagon’s cautious public posture, even as more aggressive steps unfold behind the scenes. The repeated emphasis on “retaliation risk” signals that the military is reluctant to be drawn into full-scale war.
Trump, in contrast, portrayed the strike as a victory: “Iran’s nuclear infrastructure has been destroyed.” He soon posted on social media: “If the current Iranian regime can’t ‘Make Iran Great Again,’ why not consider regime change?” This starkly contradicted Pentagon messaging and suggested Trump was leveraging the war narrative for domestic political gain ahead of the elections. Early June 2025 polls showed Trump’s approval among Republican voters rose slightly post-strike, while independents remained skeptical.
Iran responded swiftly with missile strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq and cyber operations targeting American infrastructure, signaling it would not remain passive. The United Nations Security Council convened an emergency session, where European and Chinese representatives warned that escalation could destabilize the entire region. Meanwhile, oil prices surged 18% in the week following the strikes, adding global economic pressure.
Trump’s decision won enthusiastic support from Senator Graham and Tom Cotton. However, Democrats responded sharply. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared, “This strike was carried out without Congressional approval and is unconstitutional,” reviving impeachment discussions. Within the Republican Party, Vice President JD Vance and commentator Tucker Carlson distanced themselves from Trump’s hawkish faction, while the arms lobby viewed the intervention as a strategic opportunity. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies shares rose by 11% and 9% respectively in the week after the strikes.
Washington Post columnist Jason Willick warned, “Trump’s actions risk repeating the mistakes made in Iraq, this time in Iran.” The Guardian’s Stephen Wertheim echoed this concern: “The U.S. is on the verge of repeating its Iraq error in Iran.” A RAND Corporation report noted that regime change efforts typically produce protracted conflicts with unforeseen consequences.
Private sector actors in the U.S. no longer settle for market share; they now seek to shape strategic direction. Companies like Starlink and SpaceX are embedded within the Pentagon, gaining technological footholds and influence over decision-making. SpaceX’s new 2.1 billion contract for missile tracking satellites exemplifies how tech giants are reshaping national security priorities. The alliance between defense contractors and tech giants is redefining the very notion of national interest.
This evolution weakens traditional state institutions and circumvents democratic oversight, not just a shift in strategy, but what could be described as a modern civilian cloaked coup. This recalls political scientist C. Wright Mills’ 1956 concept of the “power elite.” Mills warned that when state, military, and economic actors form a mutually reinforcing triangle, democratic accountability gives way to elite consensus. Similarly, Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens’ Democracy in America? demonstrated that economic elites and large corporations exert more influence on U.S. policy than average voters. RAND and Stockholm International Peace Research Institution (SIPRI) data confirm that this nexus intensifies during military interventions. For example, RAND’s 2024 report found that military spending increased by up to 30% directly due to private sector lobbying, while SIPRI’s 2023 data showed that 65% of major defense contracts during crises were awarded without competitive bidding. These findings illustrate how ties between lobbyist capital and the state tighten during war and crisis periods.
In this context, the boundaries of free market intervention in public policy are no longer theoretical; they are existential. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has emphasized, “Market failures produce not only economic consequences but political ones as well.” When inequality concentrates not just wealth but decision-making power, democracy begins to erode. Public authority must retain its regulatory and directional role for markets to function properly.
Moreover, economist Mariana Mazzucato’s theory of the “entrepreneurial state” offers a necessary counterpoint. She argues that the public sector should not merely correct market failures but also take on a proactive investment role. Yet today we witness the opposite: public policy is shaped by private sector logic, endangering the state’s protective and innovative capacities. The transformation of the state from a guiding force into one that is guided reflects a sacrifice of long-term public good for short-term private profit.
Protests have erupted across major U.S. cities, with demonstrators denouncing the war as “a war for corporate gain.” Brookings public opinion research shows a sharp rise in distrust of the government's motives behind foreign interventions.
Today, private actors born under the guise of the free market no longer settle for profit alone; they seek to steer foreign policy. As the U.S. returns to the Middle East after two decades, it does so not out of moral necessity or strategic urgency but under the pressure of corporatist interests eager for enrichment.
The real question is: Who inside the United States wants this war most, and perhaps more crucially, who has the power to stop it?
