_107403437_gettyimages-659274918

Two years ago, Iran’s leader Rouhani addressed the UN General Assembly and warned the United States of America point blank to never engage in a raqs-e-shamsheer: a fatal dance of blades, with the Iranian nation. He warned through metaphor that the revocation of the Nuclear Deal, and America’s incessant belligerence, was a thin-edged dance of swords the world would no longer stomach.

As a new decade begins, the world holds its breath as America brandishes and swings a venal sword for a new movement in the dance with Iran, having assassinated Gen. Suleimani of the Quds Forces in Baghdad. Vengeance has been promised, and the world news media is awash in the panic of what is popularly, but recklessly being labelled “WW3.” For now, “tens” of rockets have been fired at US bases, and casualties have not resulted.

President Trump held a press conference which signalled détente, but tensions remain high, and both countries remain on the dance-floor of swinging blades. This is because many pressure groups continue to egg Trump on the warpath, including the leaders of foreign capitals. Among these, one group that has been particularly vociferous in its advocacy of an open conflict with Tehran is the military-industrial complex, notably the “defence” companies listed on the American S&P 500 Index.

The day after the murder of Suleimani was televised in America, the markets opened with defence company stocks soaring +5 per cent, outperforming the overall S&P 500 by hefty percentage points (the overall index was negative that day). Lockheed Martin (LMT) rose 3.6 per cent, Northrup Grumman (NOC) rose +5.6 per cent, and AeroVironmment (a drone-maker) rose +6.9 per cent.

These companies, which make the proverbial “swords” that the US brandishes, drool with the prospect of further military contracts, sustaining their vast budgets and long-term cashflows, and above all assuring heftier bonuses for the CEOs and other executives of the military-industrial complex. Indeed, a brazen conflict with Iran shall keep the values of their stocks high while uncertainties loom and investors seek a profitable haven against a rising tide of fear and havoc.

War-profiteering has enriched shareholders of defence companies on an ongoing basis since at least the Gulf War, with the intermittent lulls of peace in the Middle East often causing disappointment for defence executives. In fact, one of the most sadistic sermons one can ever listen to is the conference call of a major US defence company. Held by the investor relations department and the executives of each company, these conference calls indicate how the companies rejoice at the “new opportunities” that arise around the world, particularly in the Middle East, for “sustained visibility into our revenue stream” through sales that will be translated into the wanton destruction of complete societies.

Trump had promised to end previous wars launched by his “foolish” predecessors, including Iraq and Afghanistan, which left the defence lobbies with no bone to chew on. Renewed American violence in the region, now in the guise of strikes against Iran, indicates that Trump recognises the need to throw one of his staunchest support lobbies, the defence-contract multinationals, a juicy bone.

Despite some expressions of détente, a raqs-e-shamsheer has intensified, and these sword-makers now salivate at the prospect that, given Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, some arena of blood can be found to keep the earnings per share high and the returns on equity even higher.

So in the dance of blades that ensues, it is the defence complex of late capitalism that will cheer the loudest at the spectacle of renewed violence.

–The writer is the Director for Economics and National Affairs at the Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies (CASS). This article was first published in The Nation newspaper. He can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »