Introduction: The Hidden Price of War

War usually comes with an obvious cost—lives lost, cities destroyed, and nations reshaped. Yet, beneath the surface there lies an insidious toll that reverberates across many generations: economic instability, social upheaval, and the erosion of public trust. A potential conflict between the United States and Iran carries with it the immense weight of these hidden costs, threatening to disrupt global stability and ignite a cascade of domestic challenges.

For decades, the U.S. has shouldered the heavy financial burden of military engagements, from Vietnam to the Middle East, often at the expense of its own economic health. A war with Iran would not only escalate this trend but also introduce unprecedented challenges. It could trigger inflation that strains American households, disrupt global supply chains reliant on Iranian oil, and deepen federal debt—challenges that every citizen would personally feel the brunt of, from the gas pump to their 401(k).

Beyond the matter of economic turmoil, the societal implications are just as grave. A large-scale war may very well necessitate the reinstatement of the military draft, a policy that has been dormant since 1973. Millions of young Americans, particularly those from vulnerable communities, could be thrust into military service, leaving behind workforce gaps and social unrest. Meanwhile, the specter of war would inevitably widen divisions, as debates over fairness, justice, and national priorities spill over into the streets.

This article will delve into the multifaceted costs of a U.S.-Iran conflict, uncovering how such a war would have significant ripple effects throughout the economy, society, and geopolitics. From supply chain disruptions to the lobbying power of the military-industrial complex, we will explore how the hidden cost of war extends far beyond just the battlefield. Most importantly, we shall discuss the urgent need for prioritizing diplomacy and policy alternatives in order to break free from the cycle of endless conflict.

War, as history has demonstrated, leaves no aspect of society untouched. By understanding its hidden costs, we can better advocate for a future that is built on stability and peace rather than death and destruction.

The Return of the Draft: Who Will Fight the War?

For over five decades, the United States has operated with an all-volunteer military, sparing most Americans from the prospect of mandatory service. Yet, in the event of a large-scale conflict with Iran, the dormant Selective Service System could be revived, forcing millions of Americans into military conscription. This would not only disrupt the lives of those that are drafted (as well as their families), it will also leave a lasting impact on the economy, the workforce, and the fabric of society.

Currently, the Selective Service System mandates all male U.S. citizens and immigrant non-citizens aged 18 to 25 to register. This includes green card holders, asylum seekers, and international students residing in the United States. Over 92% of eligible males are registered with the system according to government data, ensuring that the infrastructure for a draft is ready if and when it is ever activated. While the U.S. hasn’t implemented a draft since 1973, a major war with Iran—especially one that involves multiple nations—could require a significant expansion of military manpower. For perspective, the active-duty U.S. military currently stands at about 1.3 million personnel, with an additional 811,000 in the reserves. These numbers would be insufficient for a prolonged or large-scale conflict, which could require forces comparable to that of World War II, when over 16 million Americans were mobilized.

The draft, if reinstated, would likely fall disproportionately on certain select groups. Immigrants, who often register to maintain eligibility for citizenship, as well as students reliant on federal financial aid, would have a high risk of being drafted. Historically, during the Vietnam War, lower-income and minority communities were overrepresented among draftees. A 1970 study by the University of California showed that African Americans made up nearly 12.6% of those drafted, despite having only been 11% of the population at the time. Wealthier individuals often found ways to avoid service, including securing medical deferments or pursuing educational exemptions. In a modern context, similar patterns will likely emerge, sparking social unrest and public protests, reminiscent of the anti-draft movements of the 1960s and ’70s.

The societal implications of a draft would be vast. Workforce shortages would arise as young men are pulled from critical industries like healthcare, technology, and education. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, individuals aged 20 to 24 currently make up 9.5% of the U.S. workforce—millions of whom could face conscription. The education sector would also feel the strain, with thousands of students forced to abandon their studies mid-degree. This could exacerbate existing labor gaps in high-demand fields, such as STEM professions, where younger generations are vital to innovation and growth.

RELATED: Ilhan and Rashida Want You to Join the Army — As Long As You’re Trans

The psychological toll of conscription could be extremely severe. Research from the National Center for PTSD shows that up to 30% of Vietnam veterans developed PTSD, and many faced long-term mental health challenges even after returning home. Forcibly sending young, psychologically ill-equipped individuals to war could replicate these outcomes, creating widespread emotional distress that would tremor through families and communities.

The economic costs of a draft extend beyond immediate disruptions. Every draftee represents lost potential in other areas of society. During World War II, the U.S. government mobilized approximately 12% of the population, significantly impacting domestic productivity. A similar scenario today could delay advancements in industries that are critical to global competitiveness, such as artificial intelligence, renewable energy, and biotechnology.

Reinstating the draft would fundamentally alter the social contract in America. Families across the country would grapple with the emotional and financial strain of conscription, and a generation that is already burdened by economic uncertainty would face the added weight of military service. In a U.S.-Iran conflict, what begins as a geopolitical crisis overseas could very quickly escalate into domestic upheaval, forcing millions of Americans to bear the hidden costs of war.

From Vietnam to Afghanistan: Economic Fallout of Endless Wars

War has always been an expensive endeavor, but modern U.S. conflicts have left an extraordinary financial burden on the taxpayers, driving inflation, increasing national debt, and reshaping the economy for decades. A conflict with Iran would quite likely follow this pattern, with economic consequences that mirror or even exceed those of past wars.

The Vietnam War, which costed the United States approximately $168 billion at the time—over $1 trillion when adjusted for inflation—had devastating effects on the American economy. Much of the war’s cost was financed through borrowing, which contributed to the inflationary crisis of the 1970s. Inflation peaked at over 13% in 1980, driven in part by the government’s excessive printing of money to cover war expenses. To stabilize the economy, the Federal Reserve was forced to raise interest rates to almost 20%, crippling economic growth and making everyday necessities far more expensive for American families.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan further demonstrated the staggering costs of modern conflicts. According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University, these wars, along with related operations, have cost the United States over $8 trillion and resulted in nearly a million deaths, including soldiers, contractors, and civilians. These conflicts were financed largely through borrowing, with minimal increases in taxation or spending cuts elsewhere. The result has been a ballooning federal debt, which rose from $5.8 trillion in 2001 to over $33 trillion by 2024. This debt now costs the government hundreds of billions of dollars annually in interest payments, and these interest payments are expected to exceed $1 trillion a year by 2030, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Beyond the direct financial cost, these wars left lasting economic scars. For instance, defense spending has historically crowded out investments in domestic infrastructure, education, and healthcare. A RAND Corporation study showed that high military expenditures during wartime often led to underinvestment in critical sectors, slowing long-term economic growth. At the same time, war spending can lead to inflation, as government borrowing and military procurement drive up prices across the economy. During the Iraq War, crude oil prices surged to nearly $150 per barrel by 2008, further straining household budgets as gasoline and heating costs soared.

A war with Iran would likely amplify these economic consequences. Iran’s key role in global oil markets could lead to severe energy price spikes, creating an inflationary spiral that extends far beyond the battlefield. The cost of military operations, coupled with potential disruptions to global supply chains, would strain federal resources and push the national debt even higher. Based on historical precedent, the American public would bear these costs for decades, through higher taxes, reduced government services, and diminished economic opportunities.

The economic fallout of U.S. wars underscores the long-term consequences of military intervention. While the battles may be fought overseas, the costs of these wars reverberate at home, reshaping the economy and placing an enormous burden on future generations.

RELATED: The Iraq Invasion: How Fallujah’s Resistance Exposed US Brutality

Supply Chain Shockwaves: Oil, Tech, and Food

A conflict with Iran would have significant ripple effects on global supply chains, primarily due to Iran’s central role in global energy markets, as well as its strategic relationships with other key players such as China and Russia. A U.S.-Iran war could disrupt the flow of oil, rare earth minerals, and agricultural products, all of which would trigger inflation and exacerbate shortages across multiple industries. These disruptions could be particularly devastating for consumers, businesses, and governments already dealing with a fragile post-pandemic economy.

Iran is one of the world’s leading oil producers, and it holds significant influence over the global energy market, especially in the Middle East. As of 2023, Iran produces about 3 million barrels of oil per day, and it is a key player in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). A conflict in the region could lead to significant reductions in oil supply, as tensions between the U.S. and Iran could result in sanctions or even military strikes that disrupt Iranian oil exports. A sudden drop in oil supply would likely push oil prices above $100 per barrel, similar to the price surge seen during the 2008 financial crisis, when oil prices briefly exceeded $140 per barrel. Rising oil prices would drive up the cost of transportation, shipping, and manufacturing, leading to higher prices for goods and services globally.

Beyond oil, Iran’s position as a key supplier of rare earth minerals—materials essential for the production of electronics, smartphones, electric vehicles, and renewable energy technologies—could disrupt many industries around the world. Rare earth minerals are often sourced from countries like China and Iran, and if geopolitical tensions lead to supply-chain disruptions in these regions, the cost of raw materials would rise. For instance, disruptions in the supply of critical elements such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel—key components for batteries—could delay production of electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy technologies, which rely on these materials for their energy storage systems. With global demand for clean energy solutions growing rapidly, any interruption in the supply of these minerals would create significant setbacks in green energy initiatives and technological development.

Another industry that would feel the brunt of such a conflict is agriculture. Iran is a major exporter of agricultural products, particularly in the Middle East and Central Asia, including grains, fruits, and nuts. Any disruptions to Iranian trade routes, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz, could lead to food shortages that would increase prices globally. The Ukraine conflict already exposed the fragility of the global food supply chain, as Russia and Ukraine are key suppliers of wheat and other grains. A new supply chain crisis, stemming from the Middle East, could compound food security challenges and lead to price hikes in basic food staples, much like what was seen in 2022 when food prices surged globally due to supply disruption.

The cumulative effect of these disruptions would lead to a broader inflationary spiral, with widespread shortages of consumer goods, increased transportation costs, and a higher cost of living. Inflation would worsen as companies struggle with the rising costs of raw materials, while government stimulus programs—designed to help people cope with higher prices—would push public debt even higher. Families would feel the strain at the grocery store, the gas pump, and in their monthly utility bills, all while wages would fail to keep pace with rising costs.

A conflict with Iran would, therefore, be a potent catalyst for global economic instability. The disruptions to oil supplies, rare earth minerals, and food production would create a plethora of economic consequences that would push inflation to new heights, while the burden of these rising costs would disproportionately impact working-class families. The interplay between geopolitical conflict and global supply chains highlights the interconnectedness of modern economies, where one conflict can have far-reaching consequences across multiple sectors.

RELATED: War in Ukraine: Shaking Off the Numbness

How Wars Fuel Inflation and Break Budgets

War is one of the most powerful inflationary forces that a country can face. When a nation goes to war, it often requires vast sums of money, which are typically financed through borrowing. This massive government spending—without a corresponding increase in production—drives up demand for goods and services, while simultaneously creating shortages as resources are diverted toward military efforts. The result is an inflationary spiral, where the cost of everyday goods, from groceries to gas, rapidly increases, often outpacing wage growth and further squeezing the purchasing power of consumers.

The mechanics of wartime inflation can be understood in several key areas: government borrowing, supply chain disruptions, and the diversion of labor and materials to the war effort. To fund a major conflict, the government typically resorts to borrowing, which increases the national debt. As borrowing rises, so does the demand for credit, pushing up interest rates. The U.S. government, for example, has borrowed trillions of dollars to fund its military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the event of a large-scale war with Iran, borrowing could skyrocket, resulting in higher interest rates across the economy. Rising interest rates would make mortgages, car loans, and business financing more expensive, adding to the financial strain on American families and businesses alike.

Supply chain disruptions are another key driver of wartime inflation. A conflict with Iran, especially one that escalates into a wider regional war, would almost certainly cause disruptions to global supply chains, particularly in industries like oil, electronics, and food production. As the U.S. and its allies impose sanctions on Iran or disrupt its trade routes, key supplies of oil, natural gas, and rare earth minerals could be severely restricted. This would likely lead to a rise in the cost of energy and raw materials. For instance, in 2022, gas prices in the U.S. soared past $5 per gallon due to supply chain disruptions caused by the war in Ukraine. A similar situation with Iran could push gas prices above $6 or even $7 per gallon, especially if Iran’s oil exports were interrupted by military action or sanctions. Transportation costs would also increase, leading to higher prices for goods and services across the board.

Furthermore, wartime inflation is compounded by the diversion of labor and materials from civilian industries to the military. During World War II, for example, the U.S. government converted large portions of its manufacturing base to produce war supplies. This shift drained resources from consumer goods production, resulting in shortages of basic items like household appliances, clothing, and even food. A similar scenario in a conflict with Iran could see key industries—particularly those critical for technology and consumer goods—shifted to support the war effort. This would reduce the availability of these goods for civilians, pushing their prices higher and higher.

In the years following the Vietnam War, the U.S. economy saw one of the most significant inflationary periods in history. By 1979, inflation hit 13.5%, and the Federal Reserve was forced to raise interest rates to combat rising prices. The cost of living surged, making it harder for families to afford necessities like housing, healthcare, and food. Today, with inflation already at high levels due to pandemic-related supply chain disruptions and rising energy prices, the addition of a war with Iran could set off a new wave of inflation, further eroding the purchasing power of Americans.

For businesses, the cost of doing business would increase as well. Higher fuel prices would increase the cost of shipping and logistics, while companies that rely on imported raw materials—like steel, electronics, and chemicals—would face rising input costs. These companies would have little choice but to pass these higher costs onto consumers, further driving up prices. The combined effect of higher wages (driven by labor shortages), rising interest rates, and more expensive goods would leave households with less disposable income, further stoking inflation.

For the government, these inflationary pressures would create a feedback loop. As prices rise, the federal government would likely increase spending on social programs like unemployment benefits, food assistance, and healthcare to cushion the blow for American families. However, this additional spending would further increase the national debt. With less money available for investment in infrastructure, education, and social services, the government would find itself in an increasingly precarious fiscal position.

The economic fallout of a U.S.-Iran conflict, then, would not just be a matter of higher military spending; it would also be a matter of long-term financial instability. Inflation would spike, the cost of living would rise sharply, and working-class families would find themselves struggling to make ends meet. The combined pressure of rising costs, stagnant wages, and increased public debt would undermine the stability of the U.S. economy for years to come, creating a lasting economic crisis long after the war ends.

RELATED: Proud to Be an American? Not Quite!

Profiteers of Conflict: Israel, Defense Contractors, and the Military-Industrial Complex

The financial and political influence of the military-industrial complex is one of the most enduring features of modern warfare. Companies that manufacture weapons, defense technology, and military supplies profit immensely from conflicts. These profits, in turn, fuel lobbying efforts to ensure that the U.S. remains entangled in wars that secure both their financial interests and strategic objectives. In the case of a potential war with Iran, defense contractors, lobbyists, and key geopolitical players—like Israel—would be critical forces shaping U.S. policy and economic decisions.

The U.S. defense industry is a massive sector, with the two largest players—Lockheed Martin and Raytheon—alone making billions in sales from weapons systems, aircraft, and missile defense technology. In 2023, Lockheed Martin generated over $65 billion in revenue, with much of it coming from military contracts, including fighter jets and missile systems. Raytheon, another major player, made $43 billion in the same year, largely from missile defense technology, radars, and avionics. These companies, along with others like Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Boeing, contribute to the substantial economic benefits derived from ongoing conflicts. Their influence extends far beyond just government contracts—they actively lobby lawmakers to maintain or increase military spending, ensuring that they continue to secure lucrative contracts for the next generation of weapons systems.

The political and economic ties between the U.S. government and defense contractors are profound. Defense spending in the U.S. is not only a significant part of the federal budget, accounting for over $800 billion in 2024, but it is also deeply intertwined with the political power of defense lobbyists. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, defense contractors spend millions on lobbying each year to ensure that military budgets remain high and that their products continue to be in demand. In 2023, Lockheed Martin alone spent $14.5 million on lobbying, influencing key lawmakers who sit on defense committees and advocate for policies that increase military spending.

Israel is another key player in the U.S. defense ecosystem. The U.S. provides Israel with substantial military aid, totaling approximately $3.8 billion annually as of 2024, making it one of the largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid. This aid is primarily used to purchase advanced weapons systems from American defense contractors, which strengthens the economic ties between the U.S. military and defense industry. The close relationship between U.S. defense interests and Israeli security priorities is further cemented through joint military exercises, intelligence sharing, and arms sales.

In the context of a potential conflict with Iran, Israel’s role would likely amplify the economic and political pressures. Israel has long viewed Iran as a significant threat to regional stability, and it has been one of the most vocal proponents of military action against Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S. military would likely become more involved in the region, partly due to these strategic alliances, creating new opportunities for defense contractors to sell advanced weapons systems like missile defense technology, fighter jets, and drones. For instance, the U.S. has already sold Israel advanced Iron Dome systems—missile defense systems that are designed to intercept short-range threats—, and such technologies would likely be in high demand if a war with Iran escalates.

This complex web of defense spending, lobbying, and geopolitical interests ensures that war profiteers have a vested interest in maintaining conflict, whether through direct military engagement or through the procurement of arms. The economic interests of the defense industry are intimately tied to the continuation of military operations, which has led critics to argue that the U.S. is often too quick to resort to military solutions, as those solutions serve the interests of powerful defense contractors rather than broader national or international stability.

Moreover, these profit-driven relationships raise important questions about the ethical and political implications of war. When the primary beneficiaries of conflict are defense contractors and other private industries, the costs of war are not only borne by taxpayers and soldiers but also by the long-term stability of global markets and civilian populations. If a U.S.-Iran war were to unfold, the profits for defense contractors would likely soar, with lucrative contracts for missile defense, fighter jets, and surveillance technologies. However, the broader societal costs—including lost lives, economic instability, and the burden on public debt—would be disproportionately felt by the American public and those living in conflict zones.

In this context, the U.S. military-industrial complex not only influences foreign policy decisions but also reshapes the economic landscape. War becomes not just a matter of national security but a multi-billion-dollar business, with key players lobbying for ever-greater defense budgets and actively seeking to prolong or expand military engagements to protect their financial interests. The potential for another war in the Middle East, especially one involving Iran, would only serve to further entrench these economic and political dynamics, with the defense industry standing to gain disproportionately from the suffering and instability caused by such a conflict.

RELATED: Lavender AI: The New Tool for Genocide, Brought to You by Israel

The Real Burden of War on Americans

While the financial and geopolitical consequences of war are often discussed in terms of military expenditures, inflation, and international relations, the true burden of conflict is often felt most acutely by ordinary citizens. A war with Iran would not only put a strain on U.S. government spending and economic stability but also take a significant toll on the everyday lives of Americans. From rising healthcare costs to reductions in retirement savings, a potential war would ripple through all aspects of society, particularly in ways that disproportionately impact working-class families, students, and young professionals.

One of the most immediate effects of war would be on the U.S. labor force. In the event of a large-scale conflict, a military draft—especially a return to conscription through the Selective Service System—could pull young men out of the workforce, depriving industries of vital human resources. The government would likely prioritize military readiness over civilian economic needs, further exacerbating workforce shortages in critical sectors like healthcare, technology, and logistics. For students and young professionals already struggling to enter the job market or pay off student loan debt, the prospect of a draft could be devastating. The Selective Service System currently mandates that all male U.S. citizens and immigrant non-citizens aged 18–25 register for the draft, and while a full-scale draft has not been enacted since the Vietnam War, tensions could lead to its reactivation. This would force many young individuals to abandon their studies or careers and serve in a war, leaving them with fewer opportunities for career advancement or financial stability.

Healthcare would also feel the strain of a prolonged conflict. As the government funnels resources into military spending, domestic needs—such as healthcare, education, and social services—could be deprioritized. The U.S. already spends a significant portion of its budget on defense, and further increases in military spending could divert funds away from public health programs. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored how vulnerable the U.S. healthcare system is to stress; a major conflict could exacerbate shortages in medical supplies, delays in care, and even affect the mental health of those serving in the military. The psychological toll of war—on both soldiers and their families—would also place a heavy burden on an already strained mental health system. Veterans and active-duty military personnel often face high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety, which require significant healthcare resources to address. The consequences of war on the mental and physical well-being of Americans would extend long beyond the end of hostilities, leading to an increased demand for services, which the system might struggle to provide.

Retirement savings, particularly through 401(k) plans and pensions, would also be negatively impacted by a war with Iran. During times of war, stock markets tend to become volatile, as investors react to the uncertainty and instability caused by military conflicts. For instance, during the Gulf War in 1990–1991, the U.S. stock market experienced sharp declines, with the S&P 500 falling by 20% in just three months. In the case of a prolonged conflict with Iran, markets could experience similar fluctuations, leading to reductions in the value of retirement accounts. Markets recovering previously does not guarantee their recovery in the future, especially due to the weak US $ and rising national debt levels. Americans who are nearing retirement age or who are relying on their investments to fund their futures would see their plans disrupted, as the volatility of war-driven markets undermines their savings. Additionally, the costs associated with military engagement—such as veterans’ benefits and long-term care—could place additional pressure on the U.S. budget, leading to potential reductions in other social services like Social Security or Medicare.

The economic consequences of war are also linked to rising consumer prices, which impact households directly. A war with Iran could trigger a surge in inflation, leading to higher prices for basic goods like food, fuel, and housing. Working families, who are already living paycheck to paycheck, would find it increasingly more and more difficult to make ends meet as costs rise. Groceries, gas, and utilities could become unaffordable for many, forcing families to cut back on essentials or go into debt just to survive. The pressures of inflation would also likely hit renters the hardest, as the cost of housing is already rising in many parts of the U.S., and a conflict would exacerbate these trends, particularly if the war disrupts supply chains, causing shortages and price hikes.

Moreover, the societal impact of war is not confined to economic burdens alone. The emotional toll on families who lose loved ones to combat would be profound. A new draft would send young men and women to the frontlines, where many would not return. The grief experienced by military families, as well as the long-term effects on the mental health of those who serve, would be felt across the nation. Communities would mourn the loss of their sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers, and the psychological scars left by war would take decades to heal.

In sum, the true cost of war is not just financial—it’s personal. Americans would bear the brunt of rising costs, lost opportunities, and societal dislocation. The military-industrial complex may profit from conflict, but the everyday American citizen will pay a much steeper price in terms of health, wealth, and well-being. The toll of war is not something that can be easily measured in dollars or casualties—it’s a deeply ingrained hardship that leaves lasting scars on individuals, families, and the nation as a whole. The U.S. may win the battle, but it is the American people who will pay for it long after the fighting ends.

RELATED: Postcolonial Struggles and the War on Terror®: Burkina Faso

Breaking the Cycle of Endless Conflict

The costs of war—economic instability, societal hardship, and the burden of lost lives—are undeniable. Yet, these consequences are often overshadowed by the false rhetoric of national security and military necessity. In a world where the U.S. is constantly engaged in conflicts, it becomes vital to reassess the true cost of war and prioritize alternatives that can achieve peace and security without the immense toll that military action inflicts on both American citizens and the global community.

One of the key lessons of modern history is the need to identify the true enemy within. It should be noted that Iran is mainly upset with Israel’s genocide of Palestinians as well as the U.S.’s unjust invasions of Muslims in the region. The U.S. has been involved in numerous conflicts over the past century, from the Vietnam War to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In many of these cases, the lack of robust diplomatic efforts before just greed-based military intervention led to prolonged conflicts that only exacerbated regional instability, increased suffering, and deepened economic costs. A war with Iran would follow this same pattern, as the U.S. would not only face the financial and human costs of direct military engagement but also contribute to far worse diplomatic relations in the Middle East.

Instead of continuing the cycle of nonsensical military escalation, the U.S. should prioritize solutions that address the underlying issues fueling tensions with Iran. Due to the greed of defense contractors and Israel’s racial supremacist agenda, history of the U.S.-Iran relations is complex, marked by a series of interventions, covert actions, and political upheaval. The U.S. played a significant role in the 1953 coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected government and installed a pro-Western regime under the Shah, a move that sparked deep resentment among many Iranians. This intervention, along with ongoing support for puppet regimes in the region, has contributed to the strained relationship between the two nations.

At the heart of these diplomatic efforts is understanding the true Zionist enemy manipulating both sides for the Greater Israel project. History has shown that military intervention often exacerbates the very problems the Zionists duped the average Americans and, most importantly, bribed politicians into believing. The Iraq War is a prime example: the U.S. intervention, initially justified by the need to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, led to the destabilization of the country and the region, contributing to the rise of groups like ISIS and prolonging the conflict for years. The long-term cost of these interventions cannot be ignored, as the U.S. continues to grapple with the fallout from such decisions in terms of both lives lost and financial strain.

This shift also requires addressing the interests of the defense industry, which has historically benefited from sustained conflict. The military-industrial complex is a powerful force in U.S. politics, and its interests often conflict with the broader national interest of peace and prosperity. The solution is to identify the underlying rot created by greedy defense contractors and Zionist lobbies. Identifying and clearing this rot will help the U.S., both internally, by saving its own citizens; and externally, in terms of better diplomatic relations.

The U.S. is currently undergoing a major economic recession with a far worse one being imminent. Despite public outcries, the media and political representatives strongly side with the Zionists and defense contractors. Sentiments on social media indicate the exact opposite. On various polls, more than 80% of the U.S. population have strongly urged the U.S. government to stop funding Israel and instead focus on local issues of inflation, education, and healthcare. If Americans do not wake up and blindly keep supporting Zionists, who have a dark history of deceit and betrayal, both America and its citizens are doomed for irreparable destruction.

RELATED: Invisible Strings: How Media Narratives Orchestrate Our March to War