Why is no one fighting poverty? The dangerous logic behind the war with Iran

At a time when millions of people around the world struggle with poverty, food insecurity, lack of education, and inadequate health care, a new war has once again engulfed the Middle East.

This war did not emerge from a collective decision of the international community. It began when the United States and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes against Iran, triggering a wider regional conflict that has since spread across the Middle East. What began as a military operation against Iranian targets quickly escalated into a broader confrontation involving missile attacks, strikes on military bases, and disruptions across the region’s energy infrastructure. The consequences have extended far beyond the battlefield, unsettling global oil markets, supply chains, and financial stability.

Yet amid the escalating violence, a deeper question remains largely absent from the debate. Why does the world mobilize enormous resources for war while demonstrating far less urgency in addressing poverty, hunger, and inequality?

Rather than building systems that guarantee clean water, affordable food, education, and health care for the world’s younger generation, governments continue to pursue strategies shaped by suspicion, geopolitical rivalry, and outdated conceptions of power. In many respects this mindset reflects lingering colonial attitudes and entrenched prejudices, together with the persistent assumption that military force remains the primary instrument for resolving international tensions.

The strategic premise driving the conflict appears to be that weakening Iran’s leadership will destabilize the Islamic Republic and ultimately lead to political change in Tehran.

History, however, provides little evidence that external military pressure produces stable democratic outcomes.

The removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq generated years of instability and ultimately facilitated the rise of extremist movements such as Islamic State. The overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya fragmented the country into rival militias and competing political authorities. Likewise, the prolonged conflict in Afghanistan following the fall of the Taliban government illustrates how regime change rarely produces the stability its architects promise.

Iran, with a population exceeding ninety million people and a complex mosaic of ethnic, political, and social dynamics, would likely present an even greater challenge.

Even if the current leadership were weakened or replaced, it is far from certain that Iran would emerge as a strategic partner of the United States. Although many Iranians appear more receptive to democratic ideals than populations in some other post conflict states, any future government in Tehran would still need to navigate decades of hostility between Washington and Tehran as well as the United States’ close strategic relationship with regional rivals such as Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Gulf states.

For this reason alone the expectation that the war could produce a friendly and stable Iran aligned with American interests appears deeply unrealistic.

Instead, the most immediate and measurable consequences of the war are economic and geopolitical disruptions that affect the entire world.

One of the most significant developments has been the crisis surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly twenty percent of the world’s oil and gas supplies normally pass. Following the escalation of hostilities, shipping through this strategic corridor has been severely disrupted.

As a result global oil prices have surged dramatically. The consequences will be felt most acutely in Asia. Major economies such as China, India, Japan, and South Korea rely heavily on energy imports from the Gulf.

With supplies disrupted these countries face the prospect of unprecedentedly high energy prices that could ripple across global markets and trigger wider economic instability.

Estimates suggest that a prolonged conflict could cost the American economy hundreds of billions of dollars at a time when federal debt already approaches thirty nine trillion dollars.

Equally significant may be the political consequences. Many of Washington’s allies in Europe and the Middle East are already uneasy about the escalation concerned that they could be drawn into a conflict not of their choosing.

In other words the war risks producing outcomes directly contrary to what its architects intended. Instead of enhancing stability or strengthening alliances it may generate higher global oil prices embolden geopolitical rivals and deepen mistrust among both friends and adversaries.

Perhaps the most troubling dimension of the conflict is the broader message it sends about global priorities.

International defence data reveal that global military spending has risen dramatically in recent years. Estimates for 2025 suggest that global military spending remained above two trillion six hundred billion dollars. Current projections indicate that defence expenditure in 2026 is approaching two trillion seven hundred billion dollars.

In other words humanity is spending nearly three trillion dollars every year preparing for war.

Yet according to reports by the United Nations and numerous international humanitarian organisations even a small fraction of that spending could dramatically reduce global poverty, hunger, and water scarcity.

Just two to three percent of global military expenditure, approximately sixty to eighty billion dollars annually, could significantly expand access to clean drinking water, basic health care, and education for hundreds of millions of people.

What is missing is the political will to prioritise human development over military confrontation.

The younger generation across the world whether in Asia, Europe, Africa, or the Americas shares remarkably similar aspirations. They seek access to education, affordable health care, economic opportunity, and a stable environment in which to build their futures.

None of these aspirations are advanced by another war in the Middle East.

A different vision is possible. Instead of viewing the international system as a hierarchy of competing powers, humanity could begin to treat the world as a shared community in which cooperation, trade, and equitable distribution of resources are the foundations of stability.

Greater economic integration, fairer trade relationships, and cooperative development strategies would do far more to enhance global security than another cycle of military confrontation.

The world does not lack the wealth to address poverty, hunger, or educational inequality.

What it lacks is the political courage to prioritise peace over war.

END OF ARTICLE