Follow us on social

google cta
Israel's wars mean 'massive' returns for US arms company investors

Israel's wars mean 'massive' returns for US arms company investors

One year after Oct. 7, arms industry stocks way outperformed the S&P 500 index fund

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

It’s hard to see the past year in the Middle East as anything other than an unmitigated disaster.

Over 41,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza by Israel’s nearly yearlong bombardment of the territory, and significant obstruction of food and medicine shipments as a form of collective punishment against the population following Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack across the border that claimed 1,163 Israeli lives.

But not everyone has been harmed in the rapidly spiraling conflict. Investors in weapons stocks have enjoyed record gains over the past year, dramatically outperforming the major stock indexes in a stock rally that analysts are attributing to violence and instability in the Middle East.

The war has now spread to Lebanon, which Israel invaded last week, and Iran, where Israel assassinated leaders of the IRGC, Hezbollah and Hamas, actions that Iran retaliated against with massive strikes against targets inside Israel.

How Israel pursues its murky war aims in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, as well as a promised escalation against Iran, remains to be seen. The Biden administration, having spent the better part of the year promising an imminent ceasefire in Gaza and quietly urging Israel to show greater care for protecting civilian lives, has little to show for its efforts as the U.S. simultaneously continues to provide billions of dollars of weapons to Israel to execute on its rapidly expanding war.

That handout of taxpayer funds to Israel coupled with Israel’s, and global, demand increasing for weapons in a period of instability, has been jet fuel for stock prices.

Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest weapons firm and the manufacturer of the F-35 aircraft that Israel uses in its regular bombings of Gaza, at the close of trading on October 4, has produced a 54.86% percent total return in the one year following the October 7th attacks, outperforming the S&P 500 by about 18%.

Or, put another way, a $10,000 investment in the F-35 manufacturer right before the October 7 attacks would, one year later, have produced a $5,486 total return. A similar investment in an S&P 500 index fund would have produced only $3,689.

The weapons profits weren’t limited to Lockheed.

The second largest weapons firm, Raytheon, provides “bunker buster” bombs to Israel, weapons that are prohibited for use in areas with high civilian populations. Israel has repeatedly used these weapons in high density areas in both Gaza and Lebanon, producing high civilian casualties.

Demand for these weapons and others have driven up Raytheon’s stock price and generated massive returns for investors. Raytheon’s total return for investors in the past year is 82.69%, outperforming the S&P 500 by about 46%. A $10,000 investment in Raytheon before the October 7 attacks would have produced a $8,269 total return.

Another producer of bunker busters, General Dynamics, which produced the BLU-109 bombs used by Israel to assassinate Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut and leveled multiple residential buildings in the process, enjoyed smaller gains but still returned a 37% total return for investors, beating the S&P 500 by over 3%.

While profiting off war may be distasteful for some, defense analysts at major investment banks grilled weapons executives in earnings calls last October about how the companies, and their investors, might profit from the war in Gaza.

“Hamas has created additional demand, we have this $106bn request from the president,” said TD Cowen’s Cai von Rumohr, during General Dynamics’ earnings call on October 25, 2023. In a question posed to General Dynamics executives on the call, von Rumohr asked, “Can you give us some general color in terms of areas where you think you could see incremental acceleration in demand?”

One year later, those analysts have been proven correct and Israel’s war grinds on as the White House finds its bids for ceasefires repeatedly rejected while, in seeming contradiction, supplying Israel with the weapons to continue fighting.

On September 26, the White House approved a $8.7 billion aid package for Israel that will largely be spent on munitions and armaments from major weapons firms, bringing the total U.S. security assistance to Israel since October 7 to nearly $18 billion. The same day, Israel, in defiance of the U.S., rejected a call for a ceasefire with Hezbollah, no doubt driving “incremental acceleration in demand” for weapons.


Traders work on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York City, U.S., August 8, 2024. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

google cta
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
Trump $1.5 trillion
Top image credit: Richard Peterson via shutterstock.com

The reality of Trump’s cartoonish $1.5 trillion DOD budget proposal

Military Industrial Complex

After promising on the campaign trail that he would drive the war profiteers out of Washington, and appointing Elon Musk to trim the size of government across the board, some will be surprised at President Trump’s social media post on Wednesday that the U.S. should raise the Pentagon budget to $1.5 trillion. That would mean an unprecedented increase in military spending, aside from the buildup for World War II.

The proposal is absurd on the face of it, and it’s extremely unlikely that it is the product of a careful assessment of U.S. defense needs going forward. The plan would also add $5.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Budget.

keep readingShow less
Trump Venezuela
Top image credit: President Donald Trump monitors U.S. military operations in Venezuela, from Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, on Saturday, January 3, 2026. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

Trump's sphere of influence gambit is sloppy, self-sabotage

Latin America

Spheres of influence stem from the very nature of states and international relations. States will always seek to secure their interests by exerting influence over their neighbors, and the more powerful the state, the greater the influence that it will seek.

That said, sphere of influence strategies vary greatly, on spectrums between relative moderation and excess, humanity and cruelty, discreet pressure and open intimidation, and intelligence and stupidity; and the present policies of the Trump administration in the Western Hemisphere show disturbing signs of inclining towards the latter.

keep readingShow less
 Ngo Dinh Diem assassination
Top photo credit: Newspaper coverage of the coup and deaths, later ruled assassination of Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu. (Los Angeles Times)

JFK oversaw Vietnam decapitation. He didn't live to witness the rest.

Washington Politics

American presidents have never been shy about unseating foreign heads of state, by either overt or covert means. Since the late 19th century, our leaders have deposed, or tried to depose their counterparts in Iran, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and elsewhere.

Our presidents indulge in regime change when they perceive foreign leaders as inimical to U.S. security or corporate interests. But such efforts can backfire. The 1961 attempt to topple Fidel Castro, organized under President Eisenhower and executed under President Kennedy, led to a slaughter of CIA-trained invasion forces at the Bay of Pigs and a triumph for Castro’s communist government. Despite being driven from power by President George W. Bush in retribution for the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban roared back in 2023, again making Afghanistan a haven for terrorist groups.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.