OPINION | The profits of the US-Iran war

The Iran war has entered yet another dangerous phase. US President Trump announced what could emerge as one of the harshest bombing campaigns to date against Iran's energy infrastructure targets and refineries.

This was just days after a US-backed proposal through the Board of Peace was launched aimed at disarming Hamas.

Now it seems that if this plan goes forward, this could be the first time Israel returns to combat operations, which it had halted during the fragile US-Iran truce.

The term used is ‘energy infrastructure’. In other words, the oil fields themselves will be spared. That’s interesting in itself.  

US strategy keeps the war going

It is notable that from day one, the US has done nothing to avoid war and its inevitable dangers. In fact, the White House has done everything in its power to push Tehran to the brink.

The story of how an agreement was reached in the final days of February, where Iran agreed to ‘zero stockpiling’ of enriched material, blending of existing stockpiles for fuel and ‘full and comprehensive verification’ by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)was announced by the Omani Foreign Minister on February 27.

On February 28, Israel and the US began the bombing of Iran in ‘Operation Epic Fury’ for uncertain objectives.

In March, IAEA head Rafael Grossi noted that there was no evidence that Iran had a nuclear weapon, or even a ‘structured’ program. It did, however, note that Iran had begun, unsurprisingly, to deny “full access” to the agency, after the earlier June 2025 bombing of the country.

In sum, Trump went to war for no discernible reason. Whatever that line of reasoning, it began in March 2018, when the US withdrew from the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), when the IAEA firmly stated that Iran was keeping to all its treaty commitments. 

Repeated sabotage of peace efforts

Since then, the White House has only sabotaged peace efforts, undercutting their own Vice President as he was negotiating with the Iranian team in Switzerland.

The US president chose to threaten more strikes, leading to the Iranian delegation walking out, and only being persuaded by the Pakistani mediators and Qataris to return to sign the ‘Memorandum of Understanding’.

The White House, while lifting oil restrictions, refused the release of Iranian assets worth $12 billion, by saying this would be used to buy American wheat and corn, which Tehran expectedly refused.

Iran then alleged the US breached the spirit of the agreement by pressuring Oman to create a separate, unrestricted southern shipping channel in the Strait, breaching the MoU that stated specifically that Iran “will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz”.

Whether or not the US did that, it was in violation of the agreed document.

Now President Trump is on record as saying that Washington might take over Kharg Island, the key route for Iranian oil exports.

On top of that, Washington has decided to levy its own fee of 20 per cent of the value of cargo on ships that transit the Strait under its protection.

That would raise the costs of oil precipitously, with a rise of at least $30 mn per large crude tanker, and raising the costs per barrel by $16, taking it past $100 a barrel.

That proposal, together with a demand that Gulf states “reimburse” the US for providing it with security, has been replaced with a claim that Gulf States would make “massive” investments in the United States instead. None of that is surprising. War has always been about profit-making for the US. It’s just that it is now upfront and in public statements.

Profit and loss assessments

US research institutions point out that war costs are escalating, with one Harvard report putting this at $2 billion a day. This includes replacement of inventory, which is being calculated by the Pentagon at old pricing.

For instance, Tomahawk missiles are being valued at around $2 million each, while actual costs are $3 to $3.5 million. The same applies to Patriot missiles, valued at $1 to $2 million, but actual costs for newer versions are $4 to $5 million each. All this is undeniable.

But the Trump administration has also put up an unprecedented defence budget of $ 1.5 trillion, a 44 per cent increase, that will put an immense amount of money into defence-contractor pockets.

Critics point out that this leads to shortfalls for science and health, among other things. But that’s not on the President’s priority list.

Meanwhile, order books of major defence majors are in billions, including Boeing—which talks of ‘record levels’ in net orders in its report to investors—and others like RTX, which provides the missiles. More orders are coming to address depletion issues, which will also benefit smaller companies involved in drones and related industries.  

The boomers

Meanwhile, a boom is apparent in expected areas like oil, where majors like Exxon Mobil and Chevron are expected to triple profits in the second quarter of 2026, with the former expected to report about $15.9 billion in adjusted net income. Chevron is forecast at about $9.9 billion.

Meanwhile, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude production fields directly capitalised on the scarcity of oil.

Others benefiting include the shipping insurance industry in the US, like the Chubb Group, which reported net profit of $2.32 billion for the second quarter, representing a 74.3 per cent year-over-year increase. That is just one firm among many. Meanwhile, together with other insurers, the firm has teamed with the US Development Finance Corporation for a $40 billion maritime reinsurance program announced by President Trump as a mechanism to restore energy flows.

Other areas like the steel industry are benefiting not only from a rise in defence production, but also laws that mandate domestic sourcing. Downstream industries like the US metal forging market, which was valued at $17.44 billion in 2025, are expected to reach $28.70 billion by 2035, on the back of the same demand, among others. Add to this another quiet ingress: US and Qatar firms are tying up for the construction of new pipelines that will bypass the Hormuz. This is big money. Then imagine the reconstruction contracts that are likely in the future, both for Gaza and Iran.

In sum, the US became the superpower it is now after World War II, lifting the country out of the Great Depression, pushing the federal budget from $9 billion in 1940 to $98 billion by 1945. The total cost of the war to the US government was $341 billion, most of which went into the economy. Unemployment at 14.6 per cent in 1940 fell to 1.2 per cent by 1944. And remember that a generous grant of $13 billion—now about $150 billion—was made for the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe around the principle of ‘Buy America’.

More importantly, it brought Europe and Japan firmly under US influence. The odd part, however, is that the present effort by Trump to capitalise on war may result in a reverse reaction.

Europe is rolling out a ‘pay by bank’ system that bypasses traditional card networks, including a digital euro, all of which could contribute to de-dollarisation, while a new Indo-Pacific is being crafted by India, Australia, Indonesia and a revived Japan, which focuses on a world where US dominance is no longer a given.

It’s all shifting and changing by the day. And it all started, and is likely to end with the Iran war. Especially if the US decides to take over the oil fields. Then it all upends.

The author was director, National Security Council Secretariat.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK.