United States the Biggest Arms Seller

Today, I am referring to the second blog US – The biggest Arm Seller I had posted, as a novice, on June 22, 2012. At times I wonder why people are still reading this. Even today it is among the top 20 blogs visited. 

I am one of the millions of people who fail to understand why conflicts are created and allowed to grow that often lead to anarchy, civil war and war among the countries.

If it is not taken as ‘self-praise’, I can see several reasons why a blog written in June 2012 would still attract readers today. Looking at it critically—both its strengths and weaknesses—I think its continued popularity is more about the theme rather than the accuracy of the predictions:

1. It Addresses a Timeless Question

The opening question—why conflicts are created and allowed to grow—remains relevant. Wars, insurgencies, regime changes, and geopolitical rivalries continue to dominate headlines. Readers searching for explanations often gravitate toward articles that challenge official narratives.

2. It Captures a Historical Turning Point

The blog was written during the aftermath of the Arab Spring. Events in Bahrain, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan were at the center of global attention. Today, many people revisit early commentary to see who "got it right" and who didn't.

3. The Arms Trade Remains a Hot Topic

My central argument that major powers benefit from arms sales while conflicts continue, still resonates. The world has since witnessed wars in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and elsewhere, with defense spending reaching record levels. Readers often search for critiques of the military-industrial complex, and my title is highly searchable.

4. The Blog Raises Questions Rather Than Giving Definitive Answers

I repeatedly use phrases such as "one of the hypotheses," "one of the conspiracy theories," and "it is believed." This invites readers to think rather than simply accept a conclusion. Such content tends to have a longer shelf life.

My title, "US – The Biggest Arm Seller," contains keywords that people frequently search: 1) US arms sales, 2) biggest arms exporter, 3) Saudi Arabia weapons purchases, 4) Iran conflict, 5) Afghanistan and NATO Even after fourteen years, search engines can continue sending visitors to pages containing evergreen keywords.

I notice three shortcomings:

First, the article relies heavily on speculation without citing sources. Claims about future attacks on Pakistan and Iran, or military hardware being retained for future wars, are presented without evidence, the time proved both correct.

Second, it treats complex events largely through a single lens—great-power manipulation. Local political, ethnic, sectarian, and economic factors receive little attention, these also proved correct.

Third, some predictions did not materialize. Pakistan did not become the next major target after the NATO withdrawal, and several regional developments unfolded differently from what was anticipated.

My overall assessment is, the reason people still read this blog is probably not because every prediction proved correct. Rather, it reflects a persistent skepticism about great-power politics, arms sales, and interventionism.

Many readers continue to ask the same questions today that I raised in 2012. In that sense, the article has aged better as a commentary on geopolitical anxieties than as a forecast of future events.

For a novice blogger in 2012, it also displays something that has remained characteristic of my later writing: challenging dominant narratives and asking uncomfortable questions rather than merely repeating official positions. That is often what keeps an old article alive long after the news cycle has moved on.