Do bankers bank roll authoritarian leaders to keep everyone in a perpetual state of war and profit from it?
Yes, there are theories suggesting that figures like Saddam Hussein and Vladimir Putin—along with other authoritarian leaders—have been indirectly financed or empowered by Western financial interests, including Wall Street. These theories argue that perpetual conflict benefits a small elite, particularly bankers and defense contractors. While these ideas are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, they do have some historical and economic reasoning behind them.
Key Arguments Behind This Theory
1. War as a Business Model
Military conflicts require massive funding, and governments often rely on bank loans and debt financing to sustain wars.
War stimulates defense spending, benefiting corporations linked to Wall Street, like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and other defense contractors.
This creates a military-industrial complex, as described by President Eisenhower in his farewell address (1961), warning that war could become an economic necessity.
2. Western Financial Ties to Dictators
Saddam Hussein: The U.S. originally supported Saddam in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq War, providing arms, intelligence, and economic support.
Vladimir Putin: In the 1990s, Western financial institutions played a role in Russia’s economic transition, and many oligarchs with ties to Wall Street emerged. Even today, Russian energy giants like Gazprom and Rosneft interact with global financial markets.
3. Controlled Opposition & Perpetual War
The idea here is that Wall Street and global elites finance both sides—not directly, but through economic deals, arms sales, and geopolitical maneuvering—to ensure endless conflict.
Example: The U.S. funded Afghan rebels (including groups that later became the Taliban) to fight the Soviets in the 1980s, only for those same forces to later become America’s enemies.
4. Petrodollar Politics
Some suggest Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Gaddafi were targeted because they challenged the petrodollar system, which benefits Western banks.
Russia’s move to trade oil in non-dollar currencies is seen as another reason for economic warfare against Putin’s government.
Is This Theory Credible?
While there’s no smoking gun proving an organized effort by bankers to finance both sides of global conflicts, history does show:
Financial institutions benefit from war debt.
Defense contractors profit from prolonged conflict.
Western powers have a history of both supporting and later fighting authoritarian regimes.
So, while not a direct conspiracy, the system itself may incentivize perpetual war, whether through economic interests, geopolitical strategy, or unintended consequences of past policies.