Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2022-06-02-at-9.16.56-am

Behind every scene in Top Gun, War Inc. steps up to take its bows

Entertaining? Yes. But also a certified fresh start for the military industrial complex, which gets a starring role.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

I’ll admit it. Top Gun: Maverick was pretty entertaining. Between the arbitrary sports montages and impressive air stunts, there lies a sympathetic plot centered around the personal relationship between Tom Cruise’s “Maverick” and Miles Teller’s “Rooster.”

And it seems like audiences agree, with the blockbuster movie grossing $160 million in its first four days in the U.S. alone and enjoying a 99 percent audience score on the movie review site Rotten Tomatoes.

But if you look past the silver screen relationship between Maverick and Rooster, Top Gun: Maverick is, at its core, an unapologetically pro-military industrial complex film. The Washington Post reported that the film received support from the Pentagon itself “in the form of equipment — including jets and aircraft carriers — personnel and technical expertise.” In exchange for its help, the Navy even retained the power to veto things it didn’t like in the script. 

Meanwhile, to defense contractors, the new Top Gun is certified fresh as a ticket to rehabilitation. Northrop Grumman celebrated the film by publishing a piece detailing their director of business development’s journey to being an extra in the original Top Gun. On LinkedIn, the CEO of Lockheed Martin James Taiclet boasted about going to the early premiere of the film, along with the VP of Skunk Works, Lockheed’s advanced development program. But Taiclet isn’t just an avid Tom Cruise fan, he is a collaborator on the project. In the same post, Taiclet wrote that Skunk Works “partnered with Top Gun’s producers to bring cutting-edge, future forward technology to the big screen.” 

The opening scene features Maverick test-flying a hypersonic jet nicknamed “Darkstar,” a sleek black jet that observers believe is meant to resemble Lockheed’s experimental “SR-72” program. It was confirmed earlier this month that Lockheed Martin partnered with Skunk Works to design that plane, with director Joe Kosinski revealing that details of the plane were taken “out of real experimental aircraft.” Lockheed’s SR-72 has been in production since the early 2000s and is currently slated to roll out sometime around 2030. 

The mission, should Maverick choose to accept it, is to fly F-18 jets to destroy a secret uranium enrichment bunker in a rogue state. While contemplating the viability of the mission, Cruise’s character remarks that the mission “would be a cakewalk for the F-35,” though it is ultimately ruled out. References to the F-35 like this are scattered throughout the film, despite the F-35 program’s 845 design errors, cyber vulnerabilities, $1.3 trillion sustainment costs, and mission capability rates at just over 55 percent.

No, talking about sustainment costs won’t get Maverick invited to dinner with the admiral, but the broader point is that films like Top Gun: Maverick allow defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the F-35, to paper over these failures by casting it in such a heroic light.

The sequel picks up right where the original left off, sending a clear message about the importance of a strong, active military. The indeterminate, unknown enemy leaves it up to the audience’s imagination as to where the mission even takes place. North Korea? Iran? Russia? Take your pick. Top Gun: Maverick’s “choose your own adventure” military foe is easily digestible to American audiences who grew up in a country with 750 bases, counterterrorism operations in upwards of 80 countries, and frequent preemptive drone strikes.

Let's face it, Top Gun: Maverick gives the impression that projects like “Darkstar” are the only things preventing America from teetering on the brink of collapse at the behest of its nameless enemies. In this fictitious world, only with a dash of American military might and a sprinkle of characteristic Hollywood charisma can we continue to live in peace. 

Only, it isn’t quite fictitious, given that this depicts the reality of consensus thinking in Washington. The original Top Gun helped America get over its Vietnam complex, rehabilitating the military in the public square. As American audiences crammed in to see Maverick’s flying antics 36 years ago, naval aviator applications reportedly increased by 500 percent. The sequel aims to recreate that, brushing aside the failures in Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya in the interim years to serve unabashedly as an infomercial for a romanticized version of the military, its contractors, and their mission. 


Top Gun: Maverick (official trailer Screengrab/Paramount Pictures/You Tube)
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.