In the name of peace, in the service of war: Iran and America’s endless militarism

The recent US airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities has reignited global attention on American foreign policy. Though framed as a necessary step to stop a looming nuclear threat and stabilize the region, the reality points to something far deeper: a calculated move within a longstanding strategy that sells war as peace. Beneath its moral justifications, this approach has fueled violence, fed regional instability, and pushed militarism to the forefront of global politics. What was presented as a preventative act was less about avoiding war, and more about preserving US dominance.

In recent decades, US foreign policy has consistently relied on military force to advance its geopolitical interests. From the Gulf Wars to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, military interventions have consistently been justified with slogans of democracy and security. The Iran strike fits neatly into this history, where force is used not to resolve conflict but to manage it—often with consequences that outlast any tactical gain. Diplomacy has gradually faded from view, replaced by a doctrine in which war is treated as policy’s first resort.

These military ventures don’t just fail to solve problems; they often serve other interests entirely. The latest attack, like so many before, ends up benefiting the arms industry and reinforcing the war economy that thrives on conflict. This pattern, rooted in American hegemony, hasn’t brought stability. Instead, it has locked entire regions into cycles of unrest that extend far beyond the battlefield.

While US leaders tend to dress their actions in the language of morality, talking about defending global values or acting preemptively, the real consequences tell another story. In the case of Iran, the strike didn’t prevent escalation; it did the opposite. It emboldened hardliners, fractured diplomatic channels, and inflamed tensions across the Middle East. What gets framed as peacekeeping is too often a thinly veiled strategy to advance narrow geopolitical and economic goals, usually at the expense of any real long-term stability.

We’re already seeing the fallout. Rather than tamping down threats, the attack has widened the gap between nations, bred distrust, and contributed to the normalization of militarized solutions. It has reinforced a global dynamic where coercion triumphs over cooperation—and left the idea of durable peace drifting further out of reach.

Middle East in the crossfire

The bombing of Iran has had profound consequences for the Middle East. Carried out under the pretext of containing nuclear threats, the attacks have not brought calm but instead escalated conflicts and provoked retaliatory responses. Neighbouring countries, including Iraq and Lebanon, have been affected by the resulting instability, and anti-American sentiment across the region has intensified. Rather than resolving regional challenges, these actions have strengthened resistance groups and widened the scope of confrontation.

This reflects a broader policy failure, one that trades diplomatic solutions for military might. Dialogue was cut off. Negotiation windows slammed shut. The result: a region more volatile than ever, with the US seen less as a broker of peace and more as a participant in the chaos. Trust has eroded, and the chance of preventing future conflict has dwindled.

READ: Iran no longer trusts US will for talks, deputy foreign minister says

Global reverberations

But the consequences don’t end at the region’s borders. The strike struck at the foundations of international law. Institutions like the United Nations have been further weakened, and the message to the world is loud and clear: might still makes right. War is treated as a viable dispute resolution method, which chips away at global trust and fuels a dangerous precedent. A world increasingly shaped by force has little room left for peace talks.

Other nations, watching closely, are responding in kind, accelerating their own militarization and preparing for confrontation rather than cooperation. As the US helps normalize war as policy, a global culture of violence has been quietly cemented. That culture isn’t just destabilising; it’s unjust, tilting power toward those with the biggest stockpiles and sidelining those without.

At the heart of all this lies the war economy, an entrenched system in which foreign policy and weapons profits go hand in hand. Iran’s bombing boosted defense spending and corporate revenue, underlining the uncomfortable truth: war is good business. The US military machine doesn’t just run on strategy; it runs on supply chains, lobbying, and contracts. As long as that remains the case, the “peace through war” narrative will stay alive.

And while this enriches a few, it robs many. The resources funneled into militarism could fund schools, infrastructure, or global health, but instead, they sustain the machinery of conflict. For nations on the receiving end, that means fewer opportunities, slower development, and lives lived under the shadow of instability.

When diplomacy loses ground

One of the most pointed criticisms of US policy is its erosion of diplomacy. The Iran strike all but destroyed hopes of reviving the nuclear deal. Rather than creating space for dialogue, it intensified confrontation. Coercion became the substitute for conversation. As a result, chances for sustainable peace shrank while the problems grew more complex. Around the world, confidence in America’s ability, or willingness, to mediate fairly is wearing thin.

As diplomacy fades, suspicion grows. Nations are pushed into arms races, and global cooperation becomes harder to imagine. What could have been solved with negotiation is now buried under cycles of retaliation. Peace no longer seems plausible, only delayable. And that failure isn’t just tactical. It’s structural.

The fallacy of war-driven peace

This entire doctrine, what might be called the “peace through war” paradigm, has come under growing scrutiny, especially given its aggressive expansion under the Trump administration. Rather than ensuring peace, it has fueled disorder. Rather than making the world safer, it has bred fear and mistrust. The Iran strike made that painfully clear. It didn’t contain the threat; it spread it.

What’s more, by validating militarism as a normal tool of policy, this model has quietly reshaped global values. Where once diplomacy and cooperation defined leadership, now firepower does. The outcome is a world that doesn’t just resist peace, it doubts its possibility.

The 2025 assault on Iran might one day be seen as a turning point, not because it succeeded, but because it laid bare the failure of the very strategy that drove it. Wrapped in high-minded language, it delivered destruction, not stability. It emboldened weapons manufacturers, sidelined diplomats, and undermined the global rule of law. If that course remains unchanged, the world could find itself spiraling deeper into conflict, with fewer and fewer exits.

Time to Redefine Peace

What happens next depends on whether the international community chooses to break this cycle. Words alone won’t be enough. Aggressive policies need to be met with firm opposition. Real peace demands more than restraint, it demands justice, dialogue, and structural reform. If we don’t make that shift, the war-based model will continue to dominate, and the dream of peace will remain just that: a dream.

There’s still time to change course. But it requires more than critique. It requires pressure, on institutions, on governments, on industries profiting from war. Only then can we begin to build a world where peace isn’t a tactic for power, but a common purpose worth protecting.

OPINION: The seeds of intervention – American exceptionalism and the 1953 Coup in Iran

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.