By Ismael Hossein-zadeh
Militarism has always tried to disguise its interests as national interests and justify its parasitic role and existentialist military adventures on
grounds that such military operations will lead to economic gains for the imperium and the nation as a whole. This despite the fact that military
adventures instigated by beneficiaries of the business of war are often costly economic burdens that tend to be at odds not only with the interests of
the masses of the poor and working people, but also with those of non-military transnational capitalists who pay taxes to finance such adventures
while losing sales and investment opportunities in foreign markets to international competition, as well as losing political and economic stability in
global markets.
Recent U.S. military buildup and its unilateral aggressions abroad have increasingly become economic burdens not only because they devour a
disproportionately large share of national resources, but also because such adventurous operations tend to create instability in international
markets, subvert long-term global investment, and increase energy or fuel costs. Furthermore, the resentment and hostilities that unprovoked
aggressions generate in foreign lands are bound to create backlash at the consumer level. For example, the Iranian-made beverage Zam Zam Cola has in
recent years made significant inroads into the traditional markets of the U.S. brands Coca-cola and Pepsi not only in the Middle East but also in
Europe and elsewhere. A Business Week report pointed out in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq that in the Muslim world, Europe and
elsewhere “there have been calls for boycotts of American brands as well as demonstrations at symbols of U.S. business, such as McDonald’s
corporation.”
