War as a business plan

Yesterday, while European markets were closing their doors — Euronext Paris at 5:30 PM, London at 4:30 PM — Kevin Hassett delivered to American investors still active on the NYSE the Trump administration's magic formula: "Takes money to kill bad guys." A phrase that perfectly summarizes the transformation of foreign policy into an investment product.

Director of the National Economic Council, Hassett no longer hides anything. The $12 billion already spent is just an appetizer before the main course: a budget request for $200 billion for military operations related to Iran. According to information reported by CNBC, this announcement comes at a time when American markets, still open until 4:00 PM local time, can immediately integrate these prospects into their calculations.

Read more: breaking analysis trumps Read more: breaking analysis paralyzes## The arithmetic of destruction

Let's do the math. $200 billion is more than the GDP of Hungary, Morocco, or Ecuador. It's also, incidentally, more than the annual budget for American education. But Hassett doesn't bother with these comparisons. For him, war has become a budget line like any other, with its forecasts, allocations, and especially its beneficiaries.

This accounting approach to conflict reveals a fundamental mutation in American military doctrine. We're no longer in the logic of "blitzkrieg" dear to Pentagon strategists, but in that of "sustainable conflict" dear to shareholders of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and company. When Asian markets open tomorrow morning — Shanghai at 9:30 AM, Tokyo at 9:00 AM — they'll have all night to digest these defense sector growth prospects.

Timing is never innocent

Hassett's announcement comes at a particularly revealing moment. As tensions with Iran intensify, the Trump administration chooses to communicate first on financial rather than strategic aspects. This priority given to numbers over geopolitics says a lot about the true motivations behind this escalation.

The $12 billion already committed constitutes a full-scale test. It allows measuring Congress's and the markets' appetite for massive military spending. The positive reaction of American indices — still observable until the 4:00 PM close — validates this financial communication strategy.

The real winners of the equation

Behind the grand speeches about national security lies a more prosaic reality: this announced war is primarily a windfall for the arms industry. The $200 billion mentioned by Hassett won't fall from the sky. They'll be taken from other budget items or financed through debt, creating de facto a wealth transfer to military contractors.

This logic isn't new, but it reaches an unprecedented level of cynicism today. Hassett doesn't even bother to justify these expenditures through strategic imperatives anymore. His formula — "Takes money to kill bad guys" — perfectly summarizes this utilitarian vision of state violence.

Europe as spectator of its own marginalization

While Washington plans its $200 billion in military spending, European markets closed their doors without notable reaction. This difference in rhythm perfectly illustrates the ongoing geopolitical disconnect. When European markets reopen tomorrow morning — Paris and Frankfurt at 9:00 AM — they'll discover a world where the United States has once again taken a step ahead in the militarization of the economy.

This temporal asymmetry isn't trivial. It reflects a deeper reality: Europe suffers American decisions without being able to influence them. European investors can only observe the fait accompli decided during their closing hours.

Debt as a weapon of war

Hassett's $200 billion raises a fundamental question: who's going to pay? The Trump administration bets on its unlimited borrowing capacity to finance its military adventures. This strategy transforms American public debt into an instrument of power projection, pushing the real cost of these operations onto future generations.

This approach reveals a particular conception of war economics. Rather than mobilizing existing resources, the administration prefers to create debt to finance its geopolitical ambitions. A logic that works as long as markets — American and international — continue to trust the dollar.

The confession of a strategy

Ultimately, Hassett's declaration constitutes a confession. It reveals that this escalation with Iran isn't the result of strategic necessity, but of economic calculation. Hassett's "bad guys" are primarily budgetary opportunities before being geopolitical threats.

This financialization of war marks another step in the transformation of the American state into a machine for redistributing wealth to its economic elites. When Gulf markets open their doors tomorrow — Abu Dhabi at 10:00 AM — they'll discover a world where war has officially become an investment product like any other.

Hassett's formula will remain: "Takes money to kill bad guys." It perfectly summarizes the era we're entering, one where state violence assumes itself as a business model.