Does the U.S. arms industry, through its vast lobbying power and close ties to political leaders, shape American foreign policy in ways that prioritize profit over peace?

While it is simplistic to say wars are only fought for corporate gain, there is substantial evidence that defense contractors and their political allies help prolong conflicts, encourage militarized responses to crises, and resist peace initiatives when war sustains profits.

Let’s dive deep.

1. The Arms Industry as a Foreign Policy Stakeholder

The U.S. arms industry is the largest in the world. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon (RTX), General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman dominate global weapons sales. Collectively, U.S. firms account for 40% of the international arms market, supplying allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Because their revenues depend on large procurement budgets and foreign sales, these firms have a structural incentive to encourage policies that maintain high levels of global insecurity. Their profits grow when:

• The Pentagon increases procurement during wars or crises.

• Allies purchase U.S. weapons in response to regional threats.

• Congress approves foreign military aid packages tied to U.S. weapons.

2. Historical Precedent: The “Military-Industrial Complex”

President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned in 1961 against the rise of a “military-industrial complex”—a network of contractors, lawmakers, and military officials whose shared interests could distort national priorities. His warning remains relevant: arms companies are not just suppliers but active participants in shaping foreign policy through:

• Campaign contributions to defense-minded politicians.

• Funding think tanks that promote hawkish policies.

• Sponsoring conferences where military interventions are framed as strategic necessities.

3. War Prolongation: Iraq and Afghanistan

The U.S. wars in Iraq (2003–2011, with ongoing involvement) and Afghanistan (2001–2021) highlight how the arms industry benefited from prolonged conflict:

• Trillions in Contracts – Major defense contractors received lucrative contracts for aircraft, drones, missiles, armored vehicles, and logistics.

• Contractor-Driven Dependence – Even as military leaders debated withdrawal, contractors pushed for sustaining troop presence to justify ongoing weapons and service contracts.

• Lobbying Against Drawdowns – When proposals for troop reductions emerged, lobbying groups often stressed the risks of withdrawal, framing continuation as essential for security, while safeguarding billions in revenue.

Although not the sole cause of these wars’ length, industry lobbying helped create political resistance to rapid disengagement.

4. Influence on Foreign Policy Decisions

The arms industry’s influence shows up in several policy arenas:

Middle East Arms Sales

The U.S. has sold hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others. Despite bipartisan criticism of civilian casualties in Yemen, arms sales continue—fueled by defense contractor lobbying. For instance:

• Raytheon and Lockheed Martin lobbied heavily to prevent congressional bans on arms to Saudi Arabia.

• Industry allies in Congress argued sales were necessary for jobs and regional security.

NATO Expansion and European Procurement

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, defense firms have gained enormous profits supplying Ukraine directly and restocking NATO allies. Contractors funded think tanks and policy groups that advocated for increased U.S. and NATO military spending, reinforcing hawkish stances toward Russia.

Asia-Pacific Strategy

As tensions with China rise, defense firms lobby for more naval ships, fighter jets, and missile systems in the Indo-Pacific. Policy hawks in Washington—many with ties to contractor-funded institutions—frame confrontation as inevitable, legitimizing higher spending.

5. Are Wars Initiated for Profit?

Directly initiating wars solely for corporate profit is difficult to prove. Foreign policy decisions involve complex factors: geopolitics, ideology, humanitarian claims, and national security assessments. Yet industry influence tilts the policy environment toward military solutions:

• Amplifying Threat Narratives – Contractor-funded think tanks often release reports emphasizing foreign threats, downplaying diplomatic alternatives.

• Shaping Political Incentives – Lawmakers dependent on defense contributions may favor interventionist policies.

• Blocking Peace-Oriented Legislation – Arms lobbyists campaign against measures restricting arms sales or troop deployments, framing them as dangerous.

Thus, while wars may not start “because Lockheed said so,” the industry ensures that when crises arise, militarization becomes the dominant response, rather than diplomacy.

6. Structural Incentives for Perpetual Conflict

Unlike industries that thrive in peacetime stability, arms manufacturers profit most when conflict—or the perception of imminent conflict—dominates policy. Structural incentives include:

• Recurring Contracts – Weapons must be replenished during war, creating ongoing revenue streams.

• Foreign Military Financing – U.S. aid packages to allies (e.g., Israel, Ukraine) often stipulate the purchase of U.S. weapons, effectively subsidizing contractors.

• Congressional Pressure – Jobs tied to arms factories in dozens of states make lawmakers natural allies of the industry, regardless of whether wars are strategically justified.

7. The Ethical Dilemma

The blending of defense contractor profit motives with foreign policy creates an ethical dilemma:

• Democratic accountability – Are policies truly reflecting national interest, or contractor interests?

• Peace vs. profit – Industry profits create financial disincentives for diplomacy or peace settlements.

• Civilian costs – Arms sales to authoritarian regimes often exacerbate humanitarian crises.

When profit incentives align with war, policymakers face pressure that may undermine long-term stability in favor of short-term contracts.

8. Reforms and Safeguards

Several reforms could reduce the arms industry’s outsized influence on foreign policy:

1. Ban on Contractor Donations – Prohibit defense companies from contributing to political campaigns.

2. Greater Transparency in Lobbying – Require detailed disclosure of lobbying tied to foreign arms sales.

3. Think Tank Funding Transparency – Mandate disclosure of industry funding behind policy research.

4. Strengthen Arms Export Controls – Require stronger congressional oversight of arms sales to regimes with poor human rights records.

5. Diversify Industrial Base – Reduce economic dependence on arms manufacturing by promoting conversion into civilian industries.

The U.S. arms industry does not singlehandedly dictate foreign policy, but its influence tilts decision-making toward militarized solutions, prolonged wars, and continued arms exports. Profit motives are not the sole driver of war, but they create powerful disincentives for peace.

By financing politicians, funding think tanks, and lobbying Congress, defense contractors embed themselves so deeply in the policy process that it becomes difficult to separate national security imperatives from corporate gain. The risk, as Eisenhower warned, is a cycle where wars are not simply fought to defend the nation but are sustained—or subtly encouraged—because they enrich a small group of powerful corporations.