By Dr Arun Mitra
(Humanity cannot afford an endless cycle of wars, militarisation, and nuclear brinkmanship. The abolition of nuclear weapons must remain an urgent international priority. Any escalation in the ongoing wars keeps the threat of use of nuclear weapons alive. This would be catastrophic.)
The continuing wars in West Asia and Ukraine have intensified an already grave global humanitarian crisis. Millions have been displaced, tens of thousands have lost their lives, and the risk of a wider regional or even global confrontation remains dangerously high. Against this backdrop, the ongoing confrontation between the United States and Iran deserves careful examination.
Despite sustained military and economic pressure, Iran has not experienced the political collapse that many observers in Washington appeared to anticipate. Instead, it has demonstrated considerable resilience, challenging the strategic assumptions of the United States and its allies. Reports of ceasefires, renewed hostilities, and diplomatic manoeuvring illustrate the limitations of military coercion in resolving complex geopolitical conflicts. The current situation suggests that no lasting solution can emerge without sustained diplomacy and respect for international law.
The United States maintains an unparalleled global military presence, with over 750 military bases spread across different continents and an extensive network of advanced missile defence systems. Nevertheless, recent events have once again demonstrated that overwhelming military superiority does not necessarily guarantee political success. Military escalation has repeatedly failed to produce durable peace, while diplomacy, however difficult, remains the only sustainable path forward.
The strategic foundations of American foreign policy have long been influenced by geopolitical thinking. In his influential 1997 book The Grand Chessboard, former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski argued that Eurasia which combines the continents of Europe and Asia into one giant area. The word blends “Eur” from Europe and “Asia”. It constitutes the central arena of global power. According to this perspective, maintaining American influence across Eurasia is essential to preserving U.S. global primacy.
Brzezinski described Eurasia as home to the majority of the world’s population, economic activity, and natural resources. He identified major powers such as Russia, China, and India as key strategic actors capable of reshaping the global balance of power. He also emphasised the importance of strategically located states—including Ukraine, Iran, Azerbaijan and South Korea—as geopolitical pivots whose alignment could significantly influence regional stability.
Other influential policymakers, including Henry Kissinger and Jeane Kirkpatrick, also shaped American strategic thinking during the Cold War and its aftermath. Their emphasis on containing Soviet influence and maintaining U.S. strategic dominance has continued to influence aspects of American foreign policy. Many analysts argue that the persistence of low-intensity conflicts in several regions reflects this broader strategic outlook.
During the Cold War, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) provided an important collective voice for newly independent nations seeking strategic autonomy. Today, however, the influence of NAM has diminished considerably. Regional organisations such as SAARC have also struggled to fulfil their potential because of political divisions and interstate tensions.
Meanwhile, the emergence of BRICS and growing discussions about reducing dependence on the U.S. dollar in international trade indicate that the global balance of power is gradually becoming more multipolar. Developing countries must carefully assess these changing realities while safeguarding their independent foreign policy priorities.
India’s foreign policy is increasingly being examined in this context. Human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, have documented shipments of military-related components from Indian public and private companies to Israel during the genocide in Gaza by the Israeli defense forces. Such developments have generated debate regarding India’s traditional image as a supporter of peace, non-alignment, and international justice.
The growing influence of the military-industrial complex has become another defining feature of contemporary geopolitics. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), global military expenditure reached approximately US$2.9 trillion in 2025, with the United States accounting for about US$954 billion—roughly one-third of worldwide military spending. Defence allocations are expected to increase further in the coming years.
The financial burden is even more striking in the nuclear domain. According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the United States spent approximately US$69.2 billion on nuclear weapons in 2025, more than all other nuclear-armed states combined. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimates that operating, sustaining, and modernising the country’s nuclear forces will cost nearly US$946 billion between 2025 and 2034.
It is becoming increasingly evident that the U.S. economy is facing deep structural challenges. Historically, periods of economic crisis within capitalism have often been accompanied by the identification of new external enemies, creating conditions that justify military interventions and wars. In such situations, the armaments industry reaps enormous profits while ordinary people bear the economic and human costs.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was portrayed as the principal adversary of the United States. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, new enemies were identified under the banners of the “war on terror,” the fight against drug trafficking, and other alleged security threats. The underlying objective, however, has remained the same: to maintain U.S. global hegemony and secure control over strategic resources and regions of the world.
The enormous financial burden of military interventions illustrates this reality. For example, the recent U.S. military operations against Iran, undertaken in support of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government, have imposed staggering costs. Public finance experts estimate that short-term operational expenses and the replacement of military equipment alone average between US$1 billion and US$2 billion per day. Independent economists and research organizations further estimate that, once indirect costs such as higher energy prices, supply chain disruptions, and long-term equipment replacement are included, the overall cost to the U.S. economy could eventually approach US$1 trillion.
Such enormous military expenditure inevitably raises questions about national priorities. Resources devoted to arms accumulation could instead strengthen healthcare systems, expand education, improve public infrastructure, support scientific research, combat climate change, and reduce poverty. The concept of a “peace dividend” highlights the enormous social and economic benefits that could result from even modest reductions in military spending.
Peace organisations, including IPPNW, have consistently argued that even modest reductions in global military expenditure would release substantial resources for health, education, climate action, and sustainable development while reducing the risks associated with an accelerating arms race.
The continuing conflicts in the Gulf and Ukraine also carry wider implications. Any further escalation could destabilise neighbouring regions, increase humanitarian suffering across Africa, and heighten the danger of nuclear confrontation. Sudan’s prolonged internal conflict, where more than 160,000 deaths have been reported, illustrates the devastating human consequences of unresolved violence.
Humanity cannot afford an endless cycle of wars, militarisation, and nuclear brinkmanship. The abolition of nuclear weapons must remain an urgent international priority. Any escalation in the ongoing wars keeps the threat of use of nuclear weapons alive. This would be catastrophic.
Equally important is the strengthening and effective implementation of treaties regulating the global trade in conventional arms and small weapons. Lasting peace will ultimately depend not on military superiority, but on diplomacy, international cooperation, respect for international law, and a renewed commitment to human security. (IPA Service)
