The modern world spends enormous sums preparing for war. Global military expenditure has surpassed $2.4 trillion annually. Nations purchase fighter jets, missiles, air-defense systems, cyber capabilities, and ammunition. They build alliances, strengthen deterrence, and prepare for the next conflict.
Yet alongside this vast investment, spending on peace, normalization, conflict prevention, and regional stability is almost invisible.
Let us be clear: Calling for investment in peace does not mean abandoning defense. No responsible state can neglect the protection of its citizens. When civilians are threatened, governments must be strong, prepared, and capable of defending themselves.
Investment in peace must happen in parallel to investment in war, not in its stead. In fact, only a strong country can truly pursue peace. Only a confident nation can take calculated diplomatic risks. Strength and peace are not opposites; they are partners.
Alliances such as NATO unite 32 nations for mutual defense. That is necessary and legitimate. But how many international frameworks exist whose primary mission is to create peace, reduce tensions, build regional prosperity, and prevent wars before they begin?
In the Middle East, there are a few successful examples: the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty, and the Abraham Accords. Each proves that peace or normalization agreements are not a weakness; they are strategic strengths.
The war between Russia and Ukraine has produced staggering human and economic costs. There have been over 1.2 million Russian military casualties (killed and wounded), as well as between some 500,000 and 600,000 Ukrainian military casualties. Over 15,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed and more than 41,000 have been wounded. As of now, reconstruction costs are estimated at $588 billion.
And those are only the measurable costs. They do not include trauma, lost generations, displacement, or long-term economic decline. The same applies closer to home.
Israel and Hezbollah: The cost of no settlement
In the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, from October 8, 2023 until the ceasefire of November 27, 2024, over 8,000 rockets, missiles, and drones were launched at Israel. The attacks killed around 50 Israeli civilians and over 80 IDF soldiers. More than 60,000 residents were evacuated from northern Israel and massive damage was caused to homes, agriculture, tourism, and businesses.
But even after the ceasefire, Israelis have continued to pay the price.
Since the ceasefire came into effect, on the Israeli side, two civilians and 16 soldiers have been killed in operational incidents, by explosives, and in attacks. Northern communities continue to live under restrictions, insecurity, disrupted schooling, and economic hardship
Meanwhile, on the Lebanese side, at least 331 people have been killed, including 127 civilians, through the end of 2025 and more than 1,000,000 people have been displaced.
A ceasefire without a real political settlement is often just an intermission between rounds.
The question rarely asked
How much was invested to prevent all of this? How many governments are legally required to allocate an annual peace budget for diplomacy, normalization, regional cooperation, conflict prevention, and economic integration?
How many cabinets meet with the same urgency to discuss peace strategies as they do military procurement?
The time has come to change our assumptions.
Just as every state maintains a defense budget, every state should also maintain a peace budget. Dedicated annual funding should support:
Conflict-resolution initiatives, gradual normalization processes, regional trade and infrastructure projects, and water and energy cooperation. In addition, there should be educational and civil-society exchanges, early-warning diplomacy mechanisms, and reconstruction and stabilization efforts.
The international system has built sophisticated institutions for war, deterrence, and security. But where are the equally serious institutions for peace? The world needs a practical, measurable, results-oriented international body focused on peacebuilding: mediating disputes, rewarding successful normalization, coordinating reconstruction, and creating long-term incentives for stability.
What about the defense industry?
There will still be work. The world remains dangerous. Security threats are real. Defense innovation will continue to be necessary. But if a small portion of global resources shifts from destruction toward life, the outcome will justify it. There will be less production of destruction and more production of hope.
The same resources now consumed by war could be dedicated to improving a range of issues such as feeding the hungry, reducing extreme poverty, fighting disease in the developing world, and building water and desalination systems, in addition to educating children, creating jobs that will result in reduced extremism, and rebuilding shattered communities.
If countries redirected just 10 percent of their annual military spending – a total of roughly $240 billion each year – toward peace, food, water, health, and development, things would be different. There would be fewer refugees, fewer graves, less fear, and more of a future.
We can both defend ourselves and pursue peace or other non-combat or normalization agreements, the question is whether world leaders have the courage to do so.