Wars of Conquest Pay Off
False Assumption: Wars of conquest provide net economic benefits through resource control, strategic gains, and territorial expansion.
Written by FARAgent on February 11, 2026
After World War I, wars of conquest fell out of favor among great powers. In 2006, however, American neoconservatives demanded a U.S. war with Iran following Israel's draw with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Pundits like Spengler argued Iran's falling birthrate required conquests for prosperity and cannon fodder.
Sailer countered in blog posts that Iran showed no offensive preparations, only defensive ones, given U.S. occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. He listed Iran's neighbors as unappealing targets: nuclear Pakistan, worthless Baluchistan, chaotic Afghanistan, oil-rich but defended Azerbaijan, and others protected by U.S. forces or geography. Oil proved fungible; global supply-demand set prices, not ownership. Conquest costs soared with populated lands and occupation expenses exceeding Iraq's oil value.
Today, pundits see a return to realism where powers like Russia, China, and the U.S. might conquer for resources like rare earths. Yet history from 1918 shows conquest rarely pays amid high costs, low benefits, and broken empires. Neoconservative pushes for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran yielded chaos, not profits.
People Involved
- Spengler argued that Iran's falling birthrate meant the country needed conquests to secure prosperity before it ran out of cannon fodder. He pushed theories of aggressive war to achieve this. Neoconservatives joined in after the 2006 Lebanon war. They demanded a U.S. war with Iran to counter supposed Shi'ite threats. These figures championed the idea that conquests would pay off economically. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“"Spengler" has been claiming for some time that because of Iran's rapidly falling birthrate (the number of babies per woman in Iran is now lower than in the U.S.), Iran must lash out at its neighbors in a string of conquests to secure its prosperity before it runs out of cannon fodder.”— Does War Pay?
“the neocon fever swamps of D.C. were aflame with demands that the United States start a war with Iran to restore Israel’s wounded amour propre”— Does War Pay?
Organizations Involved
The Wall Street Journal's editorial page promoted war with Iran. This came amid neocon demands following the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. The page echoed assumptions about the economic benefits of conquest. It sustained the notion through its influence. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“Reading the Wall Street Journal editorial page in the summer of 2006, I started to worry about the sanity of the center-right”— Does War Pay?
The Foundation
Spengler's case for Iran's need to conquer rested on its low birthrate and fears of Shi'ite expansion. This seemed credible to neocons but overlooked Iran's defensive stance and its unappealing neighbors. It fostered sub-beliefs in inevitable Persian aggression. Oil ownership also underpinned the assumption. Theorists claimed it led to riches and chain conquests, as imagined for Saddam Hussein after invading Kuwait. Yet oil's fungibility and global pricing made control irrelevant. The sub-belief in monopoly power ignored coordination failures among producers. These foundations propped up the false idea that wars of conquest yielded net economic gains. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“"Spengler" has been claiming for some time that because of Iran's rapidly falling birthrate (the number of babies per woman in Iran is now lower than in the U.S.), Iran must lash out at its neighbors in a string of conquests to secure its prosperity before it runs out of cannon fodder.”— Does War Pay?
“From America's economic standpoint, however, it doesn't particularly matter who owns the oil because oil is fairly fungible and the price is determined, more or less, by the global balance of supply and demand.”— Does War Pay?
How It Spread
After Hezbollah resisted Israel in 2006, neocon media and pundits spread calls for U.S. war with Iran. They used editorials and heated rhetoric to push the idea. This propagation relied on the assumption that such conquests would bring resource control and strategic benefits. The spread ignored mounting evidence against it. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“With pundits proclaiming a new era of realism in foreign relations... I wrote three sizable blog posts in August 2006 when the neocon fever swamps of D.C. were aflame with demands that the United States start a war with Iran”— Does War Pay?
Resulting Policies
Neocons advocated for a U.S. invasion of Iran as a third war, alongside Iraq and Afghanistan. They based this on the wrong belief in easy conquest payoffs. The push aimed at territorial expansion and resource gains. It reflected policies built on the flawed assumption. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“Hezbollah fighting the Israeli invasion to roughly a tie on Hezbollah’s home turf also drove American neoconservatives into paroxysms over the Shi’ite Menace to America’s Interests... Whom should we attack in our third concurrent war? Probably Iran.”— Does War Pay?
Harm Caused
The U.S. occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan proved costly. They ran 50 percent more each year than the value of Iraq's entire oil production at $70 per barrel. Chaos from the wars reduced output further. Instability in Gulf oil regions caused vandalism, corruption, and fewer repairs. Production dropped, harming global supply. These outcomes showed the assumption was wrong and led to real economic losses. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“we're spending 50% more on occupying Iraq each year than all the whole country's current oil production is worth at $70 per barrel even if we stole every drop.”— Does War Pay?
“The most likely outcome of instability in the Gulf is simply more chaos, more vandalism and corruption, fewer repairs, and lower production for all concerned, as we've seen in Iraq.”— Does War Pay?
Downfall
The assumption unraveled after World War I. Demographics filled maps, making occupations expensive. Resources became fungible, and low tariffs ended the profitability seen in wars like the Mexican-American conflict. Minerals beyond oil lost importance. Harbors declined in value. The lebensraum rationale faded with open trade and higher yields. These shifts exposed the idea as false. Wars of conquest stopped paying off. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“The perceived cost of holding a conquest has skyrocketed. There just aren't that many empty spots on the map anymore”— Does War Pay?
“Minerals, other than oil, just aren't that important economically anymore... Owning stuff like Gibraltar and the Panama Canal just isn't that important anymore.”— Does War Pay?
Sources
-
[1]
Does War Pay?reputable_journalism