The business of permanent geopolitical insecurity – L’Osservatore Romano

Roberto Paglialonga

War generates profits and considerable business opportunities. It is mainly a handful of countries and certain economic sectors, and not necessarily those linked to the underground economy, which enjoy these benefits. THE Financial Times recalled how, in recent years, despite the ongoing crisis in the Middle East – or perhaps thanks to it –, all productive activities on a global scale have continued to increase at a rate of more than 3% per year. year. But if the rebound from which the economy benefits in the event of armed conflicts or crises of any kind is no longer really a mystery, today it is fear which has become a real business, thanks to which, and around which, we are structuring a new world order based on insecurity and instability. We could say that it is no longer a question of something material, but of a good whose value we are banking on for the future: a sort of futuresas in the financial markets, but with the aggravating circumstance of a total absence of risk, which on the contrary is a specific characteristic of any investment. The conclusion is that peace, in itself, is no longer suitable.

The “new monarchy
of fear »

Vittorio Pelligra is convinced of this. Professor of economic policy and director of the Center for Behavioral and Statistical Sciences of the University of Cagliari, expert in the third sector and specialist in the application of theoretical models through dialogue with cognitive psychology and neuroscience, he spoke during his recent public interventions of “new monarchy of fear”.

“Today, the economic model of those who deal with the technological defense sector, which is no longer based solely on the production of weapons, has changed profoundly,” he explains in an interview with Vatican media. And this because the new dominant criterion – which is no longer to operate within the framework of deterrence, “in which we arm ourselves to send a signal to potential adversaries concerning the costs they would suffer in the event of an attack” – is the one that experts call “pre-emptionthat is, a kind of preventive measure, which consists of preparing for something that could happen, even if it has not yet happened and may never happen. In essence, we must maintain a state of permanent danger.”

It is precisely in the transition from deterrence to pre-emption that “geopolitical insecurity becomes the basis on which this type of industry thrives”, and at the same time, a multiplier of the growth of armaments, as well as “a form of capital on which we become dependent”. Thus, “the entire defense industry no longer serves to guarantee greater security”, but develops “on a state of permanent insecurity”, which it needs “to grow”. Consequently, we structure a “circular causality” thanks to which “geopolitical instability calls for new investments, but these investments have the objective that insecurity remains”, he declares.

Weapons and defense, the first beneficiaries

We know exactly who has an interest in this happening. First of all, “the enormous system of large traditional companies in the defense sector, both in Europe and in the United States, which have found a new lease of life in recent years. Just take a look at their stock holdings.” Â Â Â According to The New York Timesin two months of war in Iran, the Pentagon has spent more than the amount allocated each year for munitions, and for the next federal balance sheet, Donald Trump has requested that the “defense” section be allocated the colossal sum of 1,300 billion dollars, which would result in gains considerable for production industries. The latest Sipri report highlights that, between 2021 and 2025, the overall volume of arms purchases increased by 9.2%. During the same period in Europe, due to transfers to Ukraine and rearmament projects, arms imports tripled, representing 33% of the world total, compared to 12% for the 2016-2020 period.

Technological control as an inevitable fact

Then there is a whole “ecosystem of new technology companies, linked to robotics, AI, data extraction and management. Security is perceived as an ability to anticipate, predict and react in advance to more or less concrete threats. It is a galaxy which includes, for example, Palantir or Anduril (the first, to give an idea, presented last month its results for the first quarter of the year which shows an increase in turnover of 85% compared to the same period in 2025, and a forecast of 71% in more for next year). These are hi-tech start-ups, which work for many governments and Defense departments, but which have “different characteristics compared to large state providers, because they innovate and invest” where they think it is the most profitable: “They are not oriented by power public, they are the ones who guide government investments and can count on a constant flow of contracts worth several billions.

In addition, it should be noted that “the link between technology and weapons is explicitly theorized.” In his latest book, Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir, “explains to Silicon Valley companies their moral duty to work with the Administration to make the country more secure” and defend the West from external threats. Technology is no longer a neutral power, writes Alex Karp, but geopolitical, and it must become an ally of democracies to fight against autocracies, like China, which are already using it to assert themselves in the world. What matters today – this is the postulate – is therefore not the States and the armies, or at least not only them, but above all the algorithms, the data, the software and the use of AI.

Capitalism
surveillance »

This is “surveillance capitalism”, denounced, among the first, by the sociologist Shoshana Zuboff in her homonymous essay published in 2019. And many people think that a more controlled world, where lives are under the magnifying glass of a “Big Brother”, institutional or not, could be, all well and good considered, preferable. From George Orwell to Dave Eggers, dystopian literature has provided extraordinary prophetic accounts of what is today a reality, with obvious threats to individual freedoms and privacy. At the base, there is also the myth, built over the years, of transparency at all costs.

“The problem— underlines Vittorio Pelligra — is always knowing who controls those who control. However, these tools are in the hands of a handful of people who completely escape the dynamics of democratic control. Thus, “for whom, why and how†they carry out certain operations are totally opaque questions that the public debate fails to address and which politics has lost any ambition to guide. The direct consequence is that “when the “state of exception†becomes the rule, the political choice in turn becomes superfluous: if the need to rearm is presented as a necessity, there is no longer room for anything else, and citizens can only submit to those in power, who are themselves subject to “a discourse” imposed from the outside which “presents the danger as imminent and inevitable”. This is how we authorize, justify and accept flagrant violations of spaces of freedom and private life “for a presumed greater good”.

The danger of limitless technology

The synthesis of what was said lies in Palantir founder Peter Thiel’s thinking that technology decides and politics executes. In opposition to the social doctrine of the Church, it is the victory of the spirit according to which “it is right and necessary to do everything that is technically possible. A conception of technological progress which cannot and must not be regulated, free from all limitations based on ethical, moral or even democratic principles,” denounces Professor Pelligra. Peter Thiel argues that with technology, “it is possible to form consensus by bypassing all traditional procedures.”

Revenues from the energy and oil sector

It is not only the technology and defense sector that benefits from a war economy, but also the energy sector: raw materials and oil first. According to Bloomberg, operators and intermediaries in the crude oil market are currently recording their highest profits since 2022, the year of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Companies like Vitol, Trafigura, Gunvor, Mercuria Energy, will make astronomical gains, with, in some cases, profits of more than 2-3 billion dollars. Today, the price of Brent oil is constantly above $100 per barrel. Among the countries with the largest profits are the United States and Russia, as well as other countries such as Indonesia (for coal) and Norway.

“As far as Washing-ton is concerned — he underlines — the revaluation of crude oil is the consequence of long-term decisions and developments, prepared over time. The policy of drills and frackingin addition to denying the principles of ecological transition, was one of the points of the political program of the current Administration.

Refineries also benefit, because they can thus obtain oil from the domestic market or, at worst, by importing it from Mexico and Canada, and also from Venezuela, whose export of black gold has tripled over the past year, according to data from theUs Energy information administration. Giants like ExxonMobil and Chevron are winning, their shares having increased by more than 20%, but also the European groups Bp, Shell and TotalEnergies, whose profits have increased significantly.

Moscow, on the other hand, benefits from the blockade of the supply channel to Hormuz and the Gulf countries, thanks to a reduction in sanctions. “A measure which has become necessary. But why? Because a specific flow was interrupted, resulting from a unilateral choice, namely that of the United States and Israel to bomb Iran. And we now present it as an inevitable necessity.”

The advantages
for stock exchanges
and shareholder securities

But the list of beneficiaries continues. The financial and stock markets are also seeing the prices of certain securities soar. The S&P 500 index, which measures the performance of a basket of stocks made up of the 500 most capitalized American companies, increased by more than 3% in the period between February and April 2026 (the offensive of the United States and Israel against Iran began on February 28), an increase of 30% in annual terms. Rebounds which also concerned the greats traders. “Insecurity and fear are for some forms of capital that produce enormous returns. But many other industrial sectors are in great difficulty: both because the current situation constitutes a quagmire in which it is difficult to plan and program anything; so much “because war industries drain the majority of investments in circulation”.

On whom do the costs fall?

But we never, or almost never, talk about the costs of a war economy, except for the cold bulletins which update the number of victims day by day. But compared to those who accumulate staggering profits, there are those who suffer significant losses. “Above all the sectors which face the difficulty of finding donors preferring to invest in the sector of peace, ecological transition, development”.

There are “costs in terms of the fragility of international relations – adds Vittorio Pelligra: the system of multilateral organizations, whatever its faults, has exploded. Relations between those who previously were allies have evaporated, and we are now in presence of a Hobbesian logic Formerly, the Cold War was based on the “delicate balance of terror”, today, “even this logic, although perverse, no longer exists, and we live in constant turbulence” And this, therefore, “leads to the trade bloc and tariff wars as instruments of persuasion”. and retaliation”.

There is the theme of democracy. “The space for public debate on certain themes is extremely limited. As soon as someone makes a critical decision in a debate that is already polarized and polarizing in itself, they are pigeonholed into one of the extreme ranks. An attitude that renders sterile the complexity of the problems that we are, however, called to face.” Finally, the repercussions on personal freedoms and private life, “which no longer exists and which, already with the arrival of social networks, we have given up trying to preserve.”

Whatever it takes
for the common good

Faced with such a problematic scenario, possible solutions seem not to exist. In reality, this is not the case, concludes the analyst. The first question is cultural. We have recently undergone “a restructuring of the way of thinking and storytelling,” he explains. “If, years ago, talking about nuclear war was taboo, today it is one of the possibilities. We began again to consider deterrence as a basis for peace. But that is not peace, it is an absence of conflict based on fear. As Pope Leo told us, peace is the result of a total change of perspective. We must therefore above all work to escape belligerent rhetoric, which is absolutely not normal.” During his visit to La Sapienza University in Rome, the Pope stressed that we cannot call defense what is solely rearmament and enriches the elites.

“There is then the pressure that citizens can exert on political representatives, for example through the reconstitution of a true European alliance. The sanctions decided by the European Union against violent settlers in the West Bank represent a small signal: even if they are not very important in quantitative terms, they are nevertheless important as a political data.

Finally, as consumers, “we always have the possibility of voting with our wallet, directing our investments and our purchases towards ethical choices”, concludes Vittorio Pelligra. In short, whatever it takes so as not to lose hope, put the protection of personal freedoms, justice and the common good back at the center, and give politics its rightful role again.