Why Did Congress Just Vote Against an Arms Embargo?
Because War is Good for Business
by Joseph Mogul, anti-Zionist Jewish organizer and writer, author of “Here & Together.” For more of Joseph’s writing you can read his newsletter here.
In the United States, war is good for business, and business is king.
Many of us feel outrage at the ongoing genocide in Gaza, expanding war in Lebanon and prospect of escalation throughout the Middle East. The anti-war movement has justifiably pointed fingers at the Biden administration for providing Israel ceaseless military support, despite indisputable war crimes on civilians in Gaza. The obvious moral response—an immediate arms embargo on Israel—is both supported by 110 human rights organizations and by the majority of Americans. However, only 19 Senators voted in favor of the recent Joint Resolutions of Disapproval (JRD), which would have blocked weapons sales to Israel.
When justice seems out of reach, it is worth re-grounding each other in what we are up against, and what we can do about it.
War does not happen because it makes some people safer, or because there are “human animals” who need to be “wiped off the face of the earth.”1 War is not a democratic process and is not declared with the consent of people impacted, nor those living in the heart of empire.
War happens because it is good for business. Fossil fuel companies, private security contractors and weapons manufacturers profit from war. The profits of these industries are central to America’s foreign policy, and thus, warmaking.
The U.S. weapons industry plays a prominent role in perpetuating endless war. America’s weapons industry is massive: it exports four times more arms than the second highest exporter, and is home to the five largest global weapons manufacturing companies. These weapons companies, including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon2, and General Dynamics, rake in billions of dollars in profits every year. How do companies whose sole purpose is manufacturing machines of death make such exorbitant profits? Directly from the U.S. government, in the form of “defense” contracts subsidized by you, the taxpayer. You pay your taxes, the U.S. trades your tax dollars to Lockheed, Northrop, Raytheon for their bombs, which are then sold or gifted to countries waging war.
Weapons manufacturing companies openly celebrate the outbreak of war, because of how it bolsters their profits. War leads to increased weapons sales and spiking stock prices, which CEOs do not shy away from in conference calls. Lockheed Martin and Raytheon stock prices continue to hit all time highs as war escalates in the Middle East, and elsewhere. Since October 6th, 2023, Lockheed’s stock price has increased by more than 50% and Raytheon’s price has nearly doubled. It’s no secret that the massive booms in shareholder profits are directly related to increased weapons sales to Israel, via U.S. military contracts.
Raytheon’s CEO, during the investors’ call following October 7th, started by offering condolences to Israel and then shifted to: “With that said, let me turn to an update on our end markets,” diving into how the genocide in Gaza would benefit their bottom line. He shared: “I think really across the entire Raytheon portfolio, you’re going to see a benefit of this restocking. On top of what we think is going to be an increase in DOD top line.” General Dynamics shared this sentiment, as Jason Aiken, executive vice president said on their investors’ call: “The Israel situation obviously is a terrible one, frankly, and one that’s just evolving as we speak… But I think if you look at the incremental demand potential coming out of that, the biggest one to highlight and that really sticks out is probably on the artillery side.”
Politicians across the aisle play a critical role in facilitating this exchange of taxes for bombs. Why do they sign onto military contracts, even ones for deeply unpopular wars? Lobbying. The “defense sector,” a euphemism for weapons companies, donates tens of millions of dollars to politicians each election cycle, incentivizing them to favor pro-war foreign policy. Lobbying is not restricted by partisan lines: weapons companies share the bounty across the aisle to ensure whoever wins elections is in their pocket. Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and every weapons company you can name all donated vast sums to both Harris and Trump’s campaigns. The money doesn’t stop flowing on election day. In October 2023, “defense companies” collectively spent $70 million, lobbying for a bill that would increase the U.S. defense (war) budget to $876 billion annually.
These lobbying dollars are only the tip of the iceberg. Powerful individuals with ties to these corporations have an even more direct influence on warmaking. Many of the decision makers in Congress and the Pentagon have connections and investments in the weapons companies profiting from war. These relationships are referred to as “revolving doors," with 517 out of 708 “defense” industry lobbyists having previously worked in the federal government. Since 2001, more than 2,700 “revolving door” lobbyists have shaped our foreign policy and advocated for weapons sales in Congress. One example exposed by OpenSecrets, a government transparency nonprofit, is lobbyist Michelle Jelnicky. Jelnicky left her job as legislative director to Republican Congressperson Jack Bergman, joining Raytheon as their “associate director of global government relations.” Jelnicky had previously worked on military policy in Congress, and after joining Raytheon, immediately began lobbying her former colleagues for an increased “defense” budget.
Jelnicky is just one example of the 2,700 revolving door lobbyists who are accountable to maximizing weapons sales, regardless of human consequences. Outside of Congress, the influence of the weapons industry manifests in “charity think tanks” and the media. For example, the CEO of Lockheed Martin, Jim Taiclet, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a pro-war think tank with personal influence on America’s foreign policy. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is a “charity,” made up of corporate and government leaders who gather around two objectives: making war and selling bombs. This council is made up of the biggest warhawks in the world. For example, in 2005 the CFR, who vehemently advocated for expanded war in the Middle East, included the likes of Henry Kissinger, Rupert Murdoch, Dick Cheney, George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Ted Kennedy, Colin Powell, Newt Gingrich, John McCain and John Kerry.
Today’s uni-party villains of the CFR are doing the same: pushing for war at any cost.
The media operates a crucial role in what Noam Chomsky calls “manufacturing consent,” the American model of pro-war propaganda in which media outlets coax public support for war by the voices they do and don’t include on air. Media personalities who are introduced as “experts” on military subjects strangely always seem to favor whatever war is happening. Unsurprisingly, many of these “experts” have direct ties to weapons companies. One recent example is retired general Jack Keane’s appearance on Fox News, in which he explained why we needed to drop more bombs on Gaza. Of course, Fox did not disclose his presence on the board of General Dynamics, a major war-profiteer from the genocide in Gaza.
The disturbing links between the Pentagon, Congress, weapons companies, media, think tanks and much of the fabric of American governance3 is called the military-industrial complex. And this is precisely why Congress voted against an arms embargo on Israel.
To me, the military industrial complex lays bare that capitalism is a broken system. Nothing makes it more obvious. Weapons businesses are not profitable because they provide some great service to America. They rake in billions because of the tentacles of power they hold across political institutions and because capitalism is a system broken at its core. All of the biggest proponents of capitalism, whether sitting in the corporate boardroom, media desk or Congress, seem to have no problem with the extortionate $876 billion federal war budget. But they do seem intent on slashing the $88 billion federal public education budget (10% of the war budget) and $8 billion public housing housing budget (<1% of the war budget). This economic system is not about “free markets” or “meritocracy.” It is about consolidating power in the hands of a few elites at the expense of all others. The reality is that a deeply unpopular war with overwhelming evidence of perpetrated war-crimes was just granted more U.S. made weapons. This decision is the pinnacle of capitalism.
Parts of this warmaking machine are scattered all around us, including in the land of 10,000 bombs. Some of the largest weapons manufacturers, including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon, have operations in/around the Twin Cities metro. Right here in Minnesota, these companies are making naval aircraft weapons management systems, components of fighter jets, precision guidance kits for bombs, electro-optical sensors, and many more technologies of death.
The state of Minnesota welcomes these companies into our communities with subsidies and a favorable regulatory landscape. This one-pager, published by the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, is an open invitation to weapons manufacturers to start operating in Minnesota. And the invite is backed by incentives. One recent example is a $1.5 million state subsidy to a Lockheed Martin subsidiary, ForwardEdge ASIC, who opened a technology center in St. Paul, in addition to the $55 million of public workers pension dollars invested in Lockheed Martin by the State Board of Investment.
Knowledge that this horrific machine exists all around us can be hard to bear. There is another side to the coin however: the global military-industrial complex relies on a consistent flow of components from places all over the country, and the world. When we resist at a local level, there are global implications. And the land of 10,000 bombs is no stranger to resistance. In our “Local War Resistance Pictured” series, we outlined tactics from Minnesota’s anti-war movement, including popular education, direct action, mass protests, encampments, war tax resistance, and worker engagement. The history of Minnesota’s diverse array of resistance tactics presents opportunities to build on. While Congress votes to continue the supply of weapons to Israel, the urgency of local resistance has never been more apparent.
For more of Joseph’s writing on anti-war organizing, climate justice and Jewish arguments against Zionism, consider subscribing to his Substack.
Quotes by Yoav Gallant, Minister of Defense, and Shimon Riklin, Israeli journalist.
Rebranded to “RTX” in 2020
AND Universities AND Hollywood (pieces on both of these coming soon!)
 | A guest post by
|