The Enemies of Peace: How Domestic Politics in Washington, Jerusalem, and Tehran Keep Wars Alive

By Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D. (Page 9 of 9 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page. 1 comment

Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D.

Become a Fan
(6 fans)

(Article changed on Jul 22, 2026 at 8:33 AM EDT)

(Article changed on Jul 22, 2026 at 8:35 AM EDT)

Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Rate It | View Ratings

Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D. Social Media Pages:

I was born and raised in Tehran, Iran, and came to the United States in 1976 to study psychology. Over time, America became my home, and I later became a U.S. citizen. My professional career has centered on clinical neuropsychology, particularly (more...)

Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Authors' Articles

OpEdNews ~~depends upon~~ can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments

Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D.

(Member since Dec 13, 2006), 6 fans, 142 articles, 166 quicklinks, 1054 comments (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)

The Politics of Perpetual War: Who Benefits from Endless Conflict?

One of the central themes of this article is that wars are rarely sustained by military logic alone. They persist because powerful political, institutional, and economic incentives develop around them. Every democracy contains individuals and organizations that sincerely believe military strength is essential to national security, and many of their concerns are legitimate. At the same time, it is equally important to recognize that prolonged conflict can create constituencies whose political or economic interests become aligned with the continuation of war.

In the United States, these constituencies are diverse. They include elements of the defense industry, whose revenues depend on government procurement; advocacy organizations that promote particular foreign policy priorities; political action committees that seek to influence congressional decision-making; think tanks with strong strategic preferences; media commentators who frame international politics primarily through the lens of military power; and elected officials whose districts benefit economically from defense-related employment. Together, these actors do not constitute a conspiracy, nor do they always share identical objectives. Rather, they represent an ecosystem in which the political rewards for advocating firmness are often more immediate and visible than the rewards for advocating diplomacy.

The role of lobbying organizations deserves particular attention. Groups such as AIPAC have every right, within the American democratic system, to advocate policies they believe advance the security of Israel and strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship. Likewise, organizations representing defense industries, veterans, energy interests, or humanitarian causes all seek to influence public policy. Lobbying itself is a normal feature of democratic governance. The important question is not whether lobbying exists, but how competing interests collectively shape the incentives facing elected officials. When multiple influential constituencies favor a more confrontational posture, the political space for compromise can narrow considerably.

History also reminds us that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, himself a five-star general, warned in his 1961 farewell address about the growing influence of what he called the "military-industrial complex." Eisenhower did not argue against maintaining a strong military. On the contrary, he believed national defense was indispensable. His concern was that the combined influence of defense institutions, industry, and politics could gradually distort national priorities if not balanced by informed public debate and careful civilian oversight. More than six decades later, his warning continues to merit thoughtful consideration.

At the same time, it would be misleading to suggest that every major political actor benefits from prolonged conflict. The Trump administration has had its own strategic reasons for seeking to limit the duration of the current confrontation. Prolonged wars carry significant economic costs, increase energy price volatility, strain military resources, and create uncertainty in financial markets. They can also complicate broader foreign policy priorities and become liabilities in domestic politics, particularly as elections approach. A rapid de-escalation allows an administration to argue that it demonstrated resolve while avoiding the costs and risks of an open-ended military commitment. In this sense, the political incentives for ending a war can become as important as the incentives that contributed to its escalation.

Recognizing these competing pressures is not anti-American. On the contrary, one of the strengths of the United States is its capacity for vigorous public debate about questions of war and peace. Throughout American history, presidents, members of Congress, military leaders, journalists, scholars, veterans, and ordinary citizens have openly disagreed over the use of military force. Such debate is a hallmark of democratic governance, not a sign of weakness. The challenge is to ensure that diplomacy receives the same serious consideration as military action, and that political leaders are rewarded not only for demonstrating strength, but also for exercising strategic restraint when it serves the nation's long-term interests.

Ultimately, the objective is not to identify villains, but to understand incentives. Peace is more likely to emerge when political systems reward successful diplomacy as readily as they reward successful military operations. Until then, the domestic politics of war will remain one of the most important-- and often overlooked-- obstacles to lasting peace.

Submitted on Wednesday, Jul 22, 2026 at 8:17:44 AM

(0+)

Share Comment

Want to post your own comment on this Article?