Why the World Funds War but Starves Peace

Image: Lightspring / shutterstock.com

In the first six days of the United States military campaign against Iran, Washington spent $11.3 billion, according to a Pentagon briefing to Senate appropriations staff. The entire annual operating budget of the United Nations stands at $3.45 billion for 2026, covering diplomacy, political missions, human rights monitoring, and the institutional machinery designed to prevent conflict. In less than a week, one country spent more than three times what the world invests in preventing conflict over an entire year. Since then, the Pentagon has asked the US Congress for more than $200 billion in supplemental funding to sustain the campaign and replenish depleted munitions stocks.

This is not an anomaly. It reflects a structural feature of the international system: the consistent overfunding of war and the chronic underinvestment in prevention.

The imbalance is not primarily about scarcity. Global military expenditure exceeded $2.2 trillion in 2024 and continues to rise across regions. Over the same period, funding for multilateral institutions has stagnated or declined in real terms. The United Nations, whose core mandate is the maintenance of international peace and security, operates on a budget modest by the standards of national governments, with many member states in arrears on their assessed contributions. This pattern reflects a political economy that consistently privileges the financing of conflict over the financing of prevention.

Part of the explanation lies in political incentives. Military spending is visible, immediate, and readily justified to domestic audiences. It signals resolve and responsiveness to threat, and political leaders can mobilise support for such expenditure quickly, often with limited scrutiny once a crisis is framed in security terms.

Prevention operates differently. When diplomacy succeeds, when tensions de-escalate, when mediation holds, there is no spectacle and no clear political dividend. Success registers as absence. This asymmetry between the visibility of war and the invisibility of peace systematically distorts how resources are allocated.

Institutional dynamics reinforce this bias. Defence establishments are typically well-resourced and embedded in decision-making systems. Diplomatic and development institutions are more fragmented, more vulnerable to cuts, and often politically marginal.

In several major donor countries, development agencies have been weakened or absorbed into broader foreign policy structures, reducing their ability to act early and independently. At the multilateral level, the United Nations depends on assessed contributions that are frequently delayed or withheld, alongside voluntary funding that is unpredictable and often earmarked. Peacebuilding remains one of the least funded areas of the system, despite repeated recognition that prevention is more cost-effective than response.

The consequences are cumulative and mutually reinforcing. When preventive diplomacy capacities are under-resourced, opportunities for de-escalation narrow and conflicts are more likely to reach the point where military intervention appears unavoidable. When the United Nations is tasked with managing complex crises without adequate or predictable funding, its performance is constrained, reinforcing perceptions of ineffectiveness and further eroding political support for multilateral solutions. The costs of conflict are then externalised globally: military escalation in strategically sensitive regions disrupts energy markets, trade routes, and supply chains, with the resulting increases in fuel and food prices falling disproportionately on low- and middle-income countries. At the same time, decisions to mobilise large-scale resources for military operations are typically taken within executive branches, with limited sustained public debate, while the underfunding of diplomacy and development is normalised as a technical constraint rather than recognised as a strategic choice.

It would be misleading to argue that the use of force is never justified. States face real security threats, and there are circumstances in which military action is deemed necessary. In the case of Iran, however, a functioning diplomatic framework had already demonstrated that constraints on its nuclear programme were achievable. The diplomatic option was dismantled, not exhausted. Senior American intelligence officials stated publicly that Iran was years away from the threat cited to justify the campaign. But the current structure of incentives ensures that diplomacy is too often set up to fail: under-resourced before it begins, and then judged ineffective when crises escalate.

Rebalancing this political economy requires more than incremental budget adjustments. At the national level, it means integrating preventive approaches into foreign and security policy with corresponding investments in diplomatic capacity, development partnerships, and early warning systems, alongside greater transparency in how resources are allocated between military and non-military instruments. At the multilateral level, member states need to provide more predictable and adequate financing for the United Nations, particularly in peacebuilding and conflict prevention. Addressing arrears in assessed contributions and strengthening flexible funding mechanisms would be immediate steps. Coalitions of middle powers, countries with a strong interest in a stable international order but less directly engaged in great power competition, have a particular role in advancing practical initiatives on prevention financing and institutional reform.

The issue is not whether resources exist. The scale of global military expenditure makes clear that they do. The question is whether states are willing to treat prevention not as an aspiration, but as a strategic priority.

As long as the current imbalance persists, the system will continue to produce the same outcome: rapid mobilisation of resources for war, and chronic underinvestment in the institutions that might make war less likely. This is not a failure of capacity. It is a failure of political choice.

Related articles:

Iran War Unravels U.S. Strategy and Strengthens Russia China Axis (3-minute read)

The US: Good at Starting but Bad at Ending Wars (3-minute read)

A Defining Moment for the United Nations: The Global Stakes of U.S. Disengagement (3-minute read)

Failure of US–Iran Talks Was All Too Predictable — But Turning to Military Strikes Creates Dangerous Unknowns (3-minute read)

The Author

Related Articles