The cost of war, the value of peace…

There is an old song that has the rhythm of “War and Peace what is it good for” from Edwin Starr that was performed over 30 years ago and it has such meaning today as it did 30 some years ago. There is another wise tale that every 30 years or so we need a war to reset the economy and the global compass of human beings and if we loose millions of humans through these wars, the world will be better off. These words are from the new world order and….. yes, these words resonate to this day.

War often seems at odds with peace, yet history shows that some of the most durable peace settlements emerge from periods of intense conflict. Several mechanisms help explain why a war might push factions toward reconciliation and stability. International pressure and shifting alliances can make a negotiated settlement more attractive than victory on the battlefield. The one exception is that l feel that Trump has overstepped his boundary with the war on Iran. 

Trump has not looked at history and has considered the past wars and how they have affected the global outcomes. Many enduring peace settlements followed periods of intense conflict, as parties recognized the limits of ongoing warfare. Successful peace often combines ceasefires, confidence-building measures, inclusive negotiations, and robust monitoring mechanisms. Sustainable peace requires addressing root causes…. governance, rights, resources, and credible security guarantees. 

What is happening with Iran and the question of “money” or “resetting the world economy”?

This touches a couple of complex mix of policy, geopolitics, and economic strategy. Iran’s regional role, its nuclear program, and its missile activities have long been central to regional security concerns. U.S. administrations have pursued a combination of sanctions, diplomacy, and brinkmanship to curb perceived threats while avoiding a full-scale military confrontation. The United States and allied sanctions have aimed to constrain Iran’s economy to push it toward more favorable negotiations. Sanctions affect access to global finance, energy revenues, and technology, influencing both domestic politics and external behavior.

Sanctions and financial restrictions are the most direct levers. They aim to change behavior by making the status quo more painful than concessions. While large geopolitical moves can have global ripple effects, the notion of a deliberate “reset” of the world economy through a single conflict is more speculative. Some actors may seek loader strategic leverage or to alter regional energy dynamics, but global economic reset risks are typically a by-product of wider conflict and disruption, not a primary stated objective.

The idea that war is waged for peace is as old as history itself. Nations justify military action as a necessary step toward stability, security, or long-term harmony. But beneath these stated goals lies a more uncomfortable question…. are modern conflicts-particularly those involving Iran and U.S. leadership under Donald Trump-driven less by ideals and more by money, power, and economic control?

Under Trump’s administration, the approach to Iran was marked by maximum pressure-withdrawal from the nuclear deal, economic sanctions, and targeted military actions. Publicly, 

these moves were framed as efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and ensure global safety. Critics, however, argued that these actions also served domestic political purposes…projecting strength, consolidating support, and influencing global markets. When leaders take hardline stances, it can boost nationalistic sentiment at home while signaling dominance abroad.

The notion that war must precede peace is deeply embedded in political thinking. Some argue that conflict forces resolution-that it brings hidden tensions to the surface and compels negotiation. Others see this as a dangerous myth, one that normalizes violence as a tool of diplomacy. History offers examples on both sides. Some wars have ended in lasting peace agreements. Others have created cycles of instability that last generations. The key question is whether war is truly the last resort-or simply the most expedient one for those in power.

So, should there be a war before peace happens? Not necessarily. Peace can be built through diplomacy, cooperation, and mutual understanding-but these paths require patience and compromise, qualities often in short supply in high-stakes politics. As for whether current tensions represent a reset, it may be more accurate to see them as part of an ongoing struggle over power and resources. War, in this context, isn’t just about shaping the world that emerges afterward. And in that world, money, influence, and control remain as central as ever.

Peace, ideally, should be the goal. But when systems that benefit from conflict remain powerful, the path to peace becomes complicated……As the song says…. “War what is good for” …answer ….” Absolutely Nothing…it’s nothing but a heartbreaker.”

Vincent Black/MS