.jpeg/08676cc55882c2d871654c2efe73a34d.jpeg)
在众多希望伊朗战争持续延烧的利益相关者中，最重要的一群，莫过于国防承包商、军火制造商，以及其遍布政界、商界、智库与媒体的游说网络。从洛克希德马丁（Lockheed Martin）、诺斯洛普格鲁曼（Northrop Grumman）、L3哈里斯技术（L3Harris Technologies），以及雷神（Raytheon）等公司的创纪录盈利与股价飙升可见，战争已为这些企业带来巨额利益。
近期，美国军火库存快速消耗的消息，更让这些企业迎来新一波商机。特朗普总统与五角大楼官员近日已多次与美国军工企业会面，敦促他们加快武器生产，以填补战场造成的巨大缺口。
根据美国国防部及国会官员估计，美军已消耗约1100枚远程匿踪巡航飞弹，而这批飞弹原本主要是为未来可能与中国发生冲突而准备。另有估计指出，美军已发射超过1000枚“战斧”巡航飞弹，相当于其每年采购数量的近十倍。此外，美军亦动用了超过1200枚“爱国者”防空拦截飞弹，以及约1000枚精准打击飞弹与陆军战术飞弹系统（ATACMS），导致军火库存已降至“令人忧虑的低水位”。
目前，美国国会正审议特朗普政府提出的额外700亿美元／2856亿令吉拨款申请，用以支付战争开支及重建军火库存。美国国内的和平倡议者若要阻止战争延续，最有效的方法之一，就是反对这笔战争预算，切断发动、维持及延长战争所需的财政支持。
从这场伊朗战争，以及美国过去在越南、阿富汗等战争的经验可以得到一个重要启示：军事资源的耗竭，加上国内政治对军购的反对，不仅能发挥稳定局势的作用，更可能成为推动全球走向较少战争的重要力量。
一般观点认为，军火库存下降意味著国家防御能力削弱，敌人可能趁虚而入。然而，若从另一个角度分析，军火短缺反而可能形成一种制度性的“煞车机制”，抑制冲突进一步升级。
供应链瓶颈，加上公众对战争及军费的不满，使政府更难同时应付多条战线。华府的战略规划者十分清楚，国防工业产能无法在短时间内倍增，因此，美国对于是否开启另一场大型军事冲突，势必更加谨慎。
当海军及防空等高端武器库存被消耗殆尽，或必须等待数年才能完成补充时，大国只能更多依靠外交协商，而非立即诉诸武力来处理地区争端。这正是伊朗战争带给亚太地区值得深思的重要教训。
对东盟与亚太地区的启示
在东南亚与太平洋地区，目前最大的和平挑战，来自两个针对中国的“小多边安全机制”──澳英美三方安全伙伴关系（AUKUS）协议及美国、日本、印度、澳洲四方安全对话（QUAD）。
西方普遍将这两项机制描述为“吓阻力量”，但许多东南亚国家却认为，它们反而加剧区域不稳定，迫使各国陷入“非此即彼”的战略选择。
根据官方估算，澳洲参与AUKUS计画，在截至2054至2055年的30年间，总成本将介于2680亿至3680亿澳元／7525亿至1兆令吉之间。然而，多个独立监察机构、国防专家及政界人士指出，最终实际开支极可能远超3680亿澳元。至于QUAD虽然没有共同基金，但成员国已承诺投入数十亿美元推动亚太各项合作计画。
如果这两项庞大的军事预算改为投入教育、医疗、基础建设、科技创新及民生发展，其对亚太和平与经济繁荣所带来的正面影响，将远远超越军备竞赛。
东盟模式值得坚持
东盟国家长期奉行“和平、自由、中立区域”的原则。包括马来西亚在内的多个东盟国家，拒绝加入围堵中国的军事架构，因此得以维持与区域内外各方的沟通管道，也避免外部势力形成一致对华围堵战线。
另一方面，东盟并未跟随美国投入军备竞赛，而是维持相对较低的国防开支。相较之下，特朗普近年成功说服欧盟多个成员国，在未来五年大幅提高国防及军购预算。
因此，东盟未来的采购重点，应放在改善人民生活、提升公共服务及促进经济发展，而不是迎合外部大国所界定的安全威胁。
回应美国防长的要求
在亚洲与太平洋地区，美国国防部长赫格塞思近日于新加坡香格里拉对话会上，要求亚太盟友将国防预算提高至国内生产总值（GDP）的3.5%。他表示，美国将不再容忍盟友完全依赖美国纳税人承担区域安全成本。
赫格塞思更将美国的新战略概括为：“少开会，多造军舰、多建潜艇。”然而，他没有提及的是，美国本身正是全球最大的军火出口国。2021年至2025年间，美国约占全球军火出口总额的42%，向全球100多个国家出口包括战机、防空系统等先进武器。
同期全球十大军火出口国及市占率依序为：
美国：42%
法国：10%
俄罗斯：7%
德国：6%
中国：6%
义大利：5%
以色列：4%
韩国：3%
英国：3%
其他国家：14%
亚太地区所有反对战争的人士，尤其是反对外部势力施压要求各国增加军购的人，都应促请本区政府继续坚持一项已被证明最有助于维护和平的策略：“更多诚实、公开、直接的外交（而不是美国与以色列在伊朗核谈判期间，违反外交惯例而发动的突袭）；更少军舰、更少潜艇、更少军备，以及更少战争军火。”
林德宜《当美国军火耗尽、战争预算见底》原文： What Happens What American War Munitions And Budgets Run Dry
Among key stake players with a financial or related self interest in the prolongation of the Iran war are defence contractors, arms manufacturers and their lobby groups in politics, economy, think-tanks and the media. Already highly successful as seen in the impact on record earnings and elevated stock market values of companies such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, L3Harris Technology and Raytheon, they have been encouraged by news of the rundown in American munitions supply as a result of which President Trump and his Pentagon officials have recently been having meetings with U.S. companies to urge them to speed up production.
According to U.S. Defence Department and congressional officials estimates, the U.S. burned through around 1,100 long-range stealth cruise missiles. These apparently were initially built for a war with China. Other estimates indicate that the military has fired more than 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles or roughly 10 times the number it buys each year. More than 1,200 Patriot interceptor missiles and 1,000 Precision Strike and Army Tactical Missile System (ATACM) missiles were also used leaving “inventories worrisomely low”.
Currently under consideration in Congress is a request by the Trump administration for an additional U.S.$70 billion to pay for the war and to rebuild the munitions supply. Peace advocates in the U.S. can counter this and hurt the renewal of war effort by denying the budgetary support enabling wars to be begun, fought and prolonged.
The lesson they, and others, can learn from the current war, and from previous wars fought by the U.S. in Vietnam, Afghanistan and elsewhere, is that external military exhaustion and political resistance to military procurement can act not only as stabilizing mechanisms. They can be among the critical counter intuitive factors to bring about a less war prone world system. While conventional wisdom might view this drop in inventory as a dangerous window of vulnerability that an adversary could exploit, a counter-intuitive analysis suggests it can act as a structural brake on conflict escalation.
Supply chain bottle necks and chokes brought about by public opposition ensure not only a diminished appetite for multi-front war. Washington’s strategic planners are acutely aware that as defense manufacturing capacity cannot quickly double or triple, the threshold for entering or escalating another major military engagement elsewhere rises significantly.
If specialized naval and air defense inventory is tied down or waiting for multi-year production runs, major powers are forced to rely on diplomatic management rather than immediate military posturing and action to handle regional disputes. This lesson from the Iran war can be applied to the Asia Pacific by sensible people from the region.
How This Affects The ASEAN and Pacific Regions
In the Southeast Asia and Pacific regions, challenges to peace have emerged from the two mini-lateral security arrangements of AUKUS (the Australia-UK-US pact) and the QUAD (US, Japan, India, Australia). Both are directed against China. While Western observers often frame these pacts as deterrents, Southeast Asian nations view them as destabilizing catalysts that force a false binary choice on the region.
The total official estimated cost of the AUKUS security partnership for Australia is between $268 billion and $368 billion AUD over a 30-year period ending in 2054–55. Independent watchdogs, defense experts, and politicians have noted that the real final figure could easily surpass $368 billion. While the QUAD has no central fund, members have collectively pledged billions of dollars to the Asia-Pacific region through specific joint efforts.
Together the two budgets if reallocated to non military ends can be positive game changers for the peaceful development of the region.
ASEAN countries have consistently prioritised a "zone of peace, freedom, and neutrality." By refusing to join anti-China containment architecture, states like Malaysia have been able to keep regional and international communication lines open, denying external powers the united regional front required to sustain a containment strategy.
ASEAN has also kept its defence budget low instead of joining the arms race that the U.S. is heavily investing in, and which Trump has been successful in persuading European Union member states to increase the defence and military procurement shares of their national budgets considerably over the next five years. ASEAN’s procurement priorities now and for the future should focus on meeting the basic needs of their citizenry rather than on security threats identified by external powers.
Responding To U.S. War Secretary
In Asia and the Pacific, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has demanded that Asia-Pacific allies increase their military budgets to 3.5% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Speaking at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore held recently, he stated that the U.S. will no longer tolerate partners relying entirely on American taxpayers for their regional security.
Hegseth summarized the new strategy as "less conferences, more ships, more subs". He omitted to mention that the U.S. is the world's largest arms exporter. In 2021-2025, it accounted for roughly 42% of all international arms sales, exporting advanced weapons like fighter jets and missile defense systems to more than 100 countries globally. The top five global arms suppliers and their recent market shares during that period are: United States: 42% France: 10%, Russia: 7%, Germany: 6%, China: 6%, Italy: 5%, Israel: 4%, South Korea: 3%, United Kingdom: 3% and rest of the world: 14%.
Critics of war promoters in Asia Pacific, especially those exerting external pressure for greater military procurement, should make sure the governments here remain committed to the strategy that has served the cause of peace: “more honest and straightforward diplomacy (unlike the unprecedented and sneaky U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran during negotiations that breached diplomatic norms) and less ships, subs, armaments and military munitions.
本文观点，不代表《东方日报》立场。
要看最快最熱資訊，請來Follow我們 《東方日報》WhatsApp Channel.
.jpeg/1fe536c50085bcc612bcd57f39b0437e.jpeg)
.jpeg/a1b3777144e627e2cf1cefc610514a5f.jpeg)
