Who stands to gain if U.S. Pressure on Iran escalates? Varsha Gandikota-Nellutla pressed that question during a recorded conversation with investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill. Their talk probed who shapes American strategy now — and who profits from it.

A sharp exchange on influence and intent

Varsha Gandikota-Nellutla — general coordinator of Progressive International — asked Jeremy Scahill a blunt question: who benefits if Washington lines up with Israel against Iran? The session, part of Al Jazeera's Reframe series, didn’t offer tidy answers. Instead, it laid out a set of competing forces around U.S. Policy: elected officials, foreign partners, corporate contractors and a fast-growing private security sector.

The question, as usual in debates about U.S. military action, boiled down to money and power. Scahill, an investigative reporter and cofounder of Drop Site News, pointed listeners back to long-term trends he’s tracked in his reporting and books.

Privatized warfare: the money trail

Scahill has written about private military firms before; his books include Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army and Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield. He reminded the audience that the modern battlefield is increasingly mixed — state forces plus contractors handling logistics, security and intelligence roles. And those contractors are paid with the same budget lines Congress authorizes for weapons and operations.

Simply put, billions of dollars go to private contracts whenever military commitments grow. Those dollars don’t just buy hardware.

They pay for services, maintenance, advisory teams and other work that can persist long after combat troops leave. That creates what Scahill described as a durable economic base for companies that profit from ongoing conflict — a point he’s made in past reporting.

Thing is, those dollars also shape political pressure at home. Contractors and arms manufacturers hire lobbyists, fund campaigns and cultivate relationships on Capitol Hill.

So, decisions on force posture, procurement, and military aid often get shaped by those who stand to profit from ongoing spending.

Did Trump abandon 'forever wars'?

Gandikota-Nellutla asked why former President Donald Trump walked away from a campaign pledge to end what he called the "forever wars." Scahill noted the pattern is hardly new: presidents who promise to scale back foreign interventions often face a mix of strategic pushback and institutional inertia once in office.

He argued that the promise of withdrawal collides with on-the-ground imperatives, allied requests, and budgetary commitments to contractors and weapons programs. Those forces can push a president back toward a more interventionist posture, even if that wasn't the original plan.

And domestic politics matter. Lawmakers from both parties have voted for large military budgets; administration officials have found it politically difficult to reverse purchases or cancel programs once jobs and industrial capacity are involved. This creates a strong backing for continued spending on arms and private services.

Is Israel steering U.S. Policy?

A central line of inquiry in the Reframe episode was whether Israel now drives U.S. Decisions in the Middle East. Gandikota-Nellutla raised that possibility directly. Scahill didn’t say the U.S. Is a passive actor. Rather, he pointed to a policy ecosystem where allied priorities — including Israel’s security concerns — are part of the equation that policymakers weigh.

He described it as a tug-of-war where U.S. officials juggle domestic politics, alliance demands, and the push from military and intelligence institutions. Allies like Israel can press for specific approaches, and those preferences can carry weight — especially when Congress is prepared to fund related operations or arms packages.

Economic fallout and who pays

Any expansion of hostilities or even sustained military pressure brings tangible costs. Scahill and Gandikota-Nellutla talked about the direct fiscal impact — higher defense spending and more contracts — and the indirect effects, like long-term obligations for veterans and security programs.

For the U.S. Economy that means budget choices: funds directed toward arms and contractors are funds not used for domestic priorities. That trade-off is political. It shows up in budget debates and in how lawmakers defend or challenge procurement decisions.

On the corporate side, firms that make weapons, supply logistics or provide security services stand to gain when policymakers keep budgets high. Those gains ripple into local economies where contracts create jobs — and into political influence as companies lobby for policy that sustains demand.

Politics and accountability back home

Gandikota-Nellutla’s line of questioning put a spotlight on accountability.

Who answers for decisions that could draw the U.S. Into wider conflict? Scahill emphasized the fragmented nature of that responsibility: elected leaders propose policy, but many others — contractors, think-tanks, lobbyists, allied governments — shape the choices that reach the Oval Office.

That fragmentation complicates oversight. Congressional committees can subpoena officials and review budgets, but the post-9/11 expansion of classified activities and outsourced capabilities has made comprehensive public review harder. Scahill has argued in his reporting that opacity benefits actors who prefer operations to remain out of public view.

Right now, debates over U.S. Posture toward Iran are playing out amid competing narratives: deterrence versus escalation, diplomatic channels versus military pressure.

These debates will influence how Congress votes on funding and set the conditions for future policy. contractors receive work.

What Washington could do differently

Neither participant offered a simple roadmap. But their exchange showd options that often surface in policy debates: stronger congressional oversight of contracts, clearer criteria for military engagement, and more transparent accounting of how taxpayer dollars are spent abroad.

Scahill’s reporting history suggests he favors scrutiny of private contractors and a closer look at how wars are fought and funded. For advocates interested in limiting the influence of private military firms, the conversation points to legislative and public-pressure levers: hearings, procurement reforms and targeted budget amendments aimed at reducing reliance on outsourced security work.

For critics of allied influence on U.S. Policy — including those who worry Israel’s priorities may shape American choices — the pathway is political: electoral pressure, debate in public forums, and congressional action that ties aid or support to specific benchmarks or conditions.

Bottom line, Gandikota-Nellutla and Scahill framed the stakes not as abstract geopolitics but as a set of domestic choices: who gets the money, who gets the contracts, and who makes the call when tensions rise. Those are decisions Americans elect officials to make — and decisions that reverberate through budgets, industries and foreign capitals.

Related Articles

Jeremy Scahill is cofounder of Drop Site News and author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army and Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield.