Who is profiting from the US-Iran War?

Infographic: TBS

While the world watches the destruction caused by the Iran–US war, another story is unfolding beneath the surface. Beyond air strikes and rising geopolitical tension, the conflict is quietly reshaping global markets. Prices are climbing, supply chains are shifting, and a small group of companies and countries are making significant gains.

War rarely distributes its costs and benefits evenly. For most people, it means higher fuel prices, inflation and economic uncertainty. But for others — particularly in the energy and defence sectors — it has become a moment to make extraordinary profit.

The clearest gains are visible in energy markets. The Strait of Hormuz, one of the most critical chokepoints in the global economy, typically carries around one-fifth of the world's oil and gas supply.

As tensions escalated and Iran disrupted shipping through the strait, oil markets reacted immediately. US crude prices rose from roughly $65 per barrel to more than $110 within a month. Petrol prices in the United States climbed past $4 per gallon for the first time since 2022.

This surge has directly benefited major oil companies. Firms such as ExxonMobil, Chevron and Shell have all recorded share price increases of more than 20% since the start of the year. According to Rystad Energy, US oil producers could see an additional $63 billion in profits if prices remain above $100 per barrel.

The logic is straightforward. Production costs do not rise as quickly as market prices. When oil prices double, profit margins expand sharply. A similar pattern was seen in 2022 following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, when global oil and gas companies generated around $916 billion in profits. Current trends suggest the industry may be moving towards another such windfall.

This time, however, the disruption is more severe. In 2022, Russian oil was largely rerouted to new markets. In contrast, the current conflict has physically removed supply from the market due to damaged infrastructure and restricted shipping routes. That tighter supply has driven prices higher and strengthened the position of producers.

Alongside energy firms, defence contractors are emerging as major beneficiaries.

The United States has already expanded military production in response to the conflict. Companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing are working to increase the output of missile systems and other weapons. Lockheed Martin's share price has risen by around 25% since the beginning of the year.

The scale of military activity explains this surge. The US military is deploying more than 20 distinct weapons systems in operations against Iran, including fighter aircraft, missiles, drones and surveillance platforms. 

These systems are manufactured by a network of firms that includes Northrop Grumman, RTX Corporation and General Atomics.

As weapons are used in active conflict, stockpiles must be replenished. This creates sustained demand that extends beyond the immediate phase of war. In some cases, companies are preparing to significantly increase production capacity, suggesting that the financial benefits may persist if the conflict continues.

Globally, the defence industry is already vast. Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows that the world's top 100 defence companies generated approximately $679 billion in revenue in 2024. US firms accounted for nearly half of that total. With rising geopolitical tensions and increased military spending, these figures are expected to grow further.

European and Israeli defence firms are also seeing gains. The UK-based BAE Systems experienced a rise in its share price at the outset of the conflict, while Israel's Elbit Systems has recorded strong growth, reflecting increased demand for advanced military technology.

The effects of the war extend beyond energy and defence. Shipping companies are experiencing both risks and opportunities. As routes through the Middle East become unsafe, vessels are being redirected along longer paths. This increases transit times and costs, but it also allows shipping firms to charge higher rates.

Companies such as Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd have seen their share prices rise in response to these changes. At the same time, they face operational risks, including potential attacks and disruptions to port activity.

In contrast, several industries are under pressure. Airlines have been particularly affected by rising fuel costs. Major carriers have seen their share prices fall by more than 15% since the start of the year. Diesel prices, which have increased by roughly 40%, are also raising costs across logistics and transport sectors.

The impact is not limited to corporate balance sheets. Liquefied natural gas, essential for fertiliser production, has also been disrupted. This has the potential to affect agricultural output and food prices globally. For ordinary consumers, the result is clear: higher energy costs translate into more expensive transport, food and basic goods.

The distribution of gains from the war remains highly uneven. Evidence from previous crises shows that profits are concentrated among a small group. During the 2022 energy surge, around half of the profits generated by US oil companies went to the top 1% of earners, while only a small portion reached the broader population.

There are also geopolitical beneficiaries. The United States is reinforcing its position as a major energy exporter, particularly to Europe. Gulf producers such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates may benefit from higher prices, although their proximity to the conflict exposes them to risk.

Russia could gain indirectly. As global buyers seek alternative supplies, some may turn to Russian oil, especially in price-sensitive markets such as India and China. This shift has the potential to reshape global energy trade flows.

Within Iran, the effects are more complex. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which controls a significant share of the country's economy, is likely to strengthen its position. In periods of sanctions and conflict, reduced competition often allows such actors to expand their influence across key sectors.

At the same time, the broader population faces economic hardship. Previous data indicate that millions of Iranians have fallen into poverty during periods of sustained sanctions. This reflects a wider pattern in conflict economies, where wealth and power become more concentrated while ordinary citizens bear the cost.

The war also raises questions about the long-term energy transition. High oil and gas prices make fossil fuel production more profitable, potentially slowing investment in renewable energy. At the same time, sustained price volatility may encourage governments and businesses to accelerate the shift towards alternative energy sources. The overall impact will depend largely on the duration of the conflict.

That duration remains the key uncertainty. If the war is resolved quickly, many of the current gains may prove temporary. Oil prices could stabilise, and demand for weapons systems may ease. However, if the conflict continues, the economic consequences are likely to deepen.

Estimates suggest that the total economic cost to the United States alone could range between $50 billion and $210 billion, depending on how events unfold. This highlights a central reality: while certain sectors benefit, the broader economic impact of war is overwhelmingly negative.

The Iran–US conflict illustrates a familiar pattern in modern warfare. Destruction and instability create opportunities for those positioned to benefit. Oil companies gain from higher prices. Defence firms benefit from increased demand. Shipping companies adapt to disruption.

But these gains come at a significant cost. Rising living expenses, economic instability and human suffering are experienced far more widely. Profits are concentrated, while the burden is shared.

Understanding this imbalance is essential. It reveals not only how war reshapes economies, but also why conflicts can persist longer than expected. When powerful actors stand to benefit, the incentives to bring an end to war become weaker.