Analysis and Commentary by Lisa Pillivant
Who really benefits from the war with Iran?
When wars begin, the public is usually presented with a familiar narrative: security, necessity and national interest. But wars do more than produce winners and losers on the battlefield. They also create beneficiaries — governments, industries and political actors whose interests are advanced by the conflict.
The escalating confrontation involving Iran is no exception. While the public conversation focuses on military strikes and geopolitical tensions, the deeper question remains: who stands to gain — and who pays the price?
A closer look suggests several clear beneficiaries. None of them appear to be ordinary Americans.
The pretext for war shifted quickly — from the President having a “feeling” of an imminent Iranian attack, to Secretary of State Marco Rubio claiming Israel was preparing to strike and the United States had to act.
But when reporters asked whether the President’s hand had been forced by Israel, Trump denied it outright.
“If anything, I forced their hand,” the President said.
With such confused messaging, the reason for the war remains unclear — just as the way it happened raises questions. The strikes occurred without Congressional approval, without United Nations authorization, and without meaningful consultation with many traditional U.S. allies.
Many observers also question the timing.
In the weeks before the escalation, Trump publicly called on the Iranian people to rise up against their government. “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING — TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! … HELP IS ON ITS WAY,” Trump wrote in a January post on Truth Social, without explaining what that help might be or when it would arrive.
The uprising he appeared to anticipate never came. Protests that had erupted across several Iranian cities were quickly and brutally suppressed by the regime’s security forces, according to human rights groups and international reporting. The promised help never materialized, and the demonstrations faded under a harsh crackdown.
Others argue that the timing of the conflict may have had as much to do with politics in Washington as events in Tehran.
Trump: Changing the Political Conversation
Wars reshape domestic politics. When the media covers war, every other topic fades.
Critics argue Trump will do almost anything to change the subject away from the political damage surrounding the Epstein files and other controversies facing the administration.
Major international crises tend to dominate media coverage. Military developments crowd out other stories, shifting public attention almost overnight.
For President Donald Trump, the timing of the conflict has drawn particular scrutiny. Prior controversies — including renewed attention to the Epstein files and criticism of the Justice Department — largely disappeared from front pages once the war began dominating the news cycle.
Whether intentional or coincidental, the effect is obvious: the national conversation changed.
On Monday, President Trump defended the strikes during a Press Conference, saying: “If we did not hit them they were going to take over the Middle East.” He did not offer any information to support that statement.
“Well, I’ll give you the best reason of all. Within a week they were going to attack us, 100 per cent. They were ready,” said Trump.
That statement raised eyebrows, especially because administration officials had earlier claimed Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been “totally destroyed” by the June 2025 attacks. Back then, in a televised address, President Trump announced, “Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated”.
If the threat was eliminated, critics ask, what exactly is the ongoing objective of the war?
Israel: The Most Obvious Strategic Beneficiary
Israel comes out as perhaps the most obvious strategic beneficiary of the conflict.
Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu has warned of an imminent threat from an Iranian nuclear bomb for the past 30 years.
In 2012 at the United Nations General Assembly, Netanyahu famously brandished a cartoon drawing of a bomb to illustrate his claims that Iran was closer than ever to the nuclear threshold. “By next spring, at most by next summer … they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage,” said Natenyahu.
Netanyahu maintained for decades that the threat remains urgent, while Israel has conducted attacks against Iran.
“If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time,” he argued in 2025, suggesting the timeline “could be months, even weeks”. These assertions persisted despite statements from the US Director of National Intelligence earlier same year saying Iran was not building a nuclear weapon.
Still, Tehran’s missile programs, nuclear ambitions, and support for militant groups such as Hezbollah have shaped Israeli defense policy for years. For decades, Iran has been viewed by Israeli leaders as their most dangerous regional adversary.
Any military campaign that damages Iran’s military infrastructure or delays its nuclear capabilities advances Israel’s long-term strategic goals. Even limited success could weaken Iran’s regional influence for years.
That does not mean Israel avoids risk. Retaliation, regional instability, and proxy conflicts remain real possibilities. But weakening Iran has been a central objective of Israeli policy for decades.
Oil Producers: War Is Good for the Energy Market
Wars in the Middle East tend to have another predictable result: rising oil prices.
Whenever instability threatens the Persian Gulf — which carries roughly a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil shipments — energy markets react immediately. Prices surge.
That benefits oil producers across the world — from American shale companies to multinational energy firms and commodity traders.
Energy markets thrive on uncertainty. War creates exactly that.
Russia: Higher Oil Prices and a Distracted West
Another clear beneficiary is Russia.
Global conflict in the Middle East tends to push oil prices higher. Russia, one of the world’s largest energy exporters, profits directly from rising crude prices.
Russia built its current year’s federal budget around oil prices of roughly $59 per barrel. Recent price spikes have pushed oil well above that level, delivering Moscow a much-needed windfall that could help sustain its war in Ukraine.
While higher oil revenues alone help offset the economic impact of Western sanctions imposed after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the United States has also recently softened enforcement measures affecting parts of Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” used to transport sanctioned oil.
Further, on Monday, March 9th, Trump told reporters in Florida that his administration was lifting sanctions on some countries (likely Russia) as part of efforts to stabilize the oil market, but declined to provide details. “So we have sanctions on some countries. We’re going to take those sanctions off until the Strait is up,” he said.
A prolonged Middle East conflict also risks shifting Western attention and resources away from Eastern Europe — giving the Kremlin valuable breathing room.
Trump himself acknowledged speaking with Russian President Vladimir Putin during the crisis.
“We talked about it,” Trump told reporters on Monday, adding that Putin said he was “very impressed.” Impressed may be the right word — but pleased might be closer to reality.
At the same time, Moscow’s public posture toward the conflict tells a different story than the casual compliments described by Trump. Reports cited by The Washington Post and confirmed by officials speaking to Reuters say Russia has been providing Iran with intelligence on the locations of U.S. warships and aircraft in the Middle East, potentially helping Tehran target American forces as the conflict escalates.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin has moved quickly to embrace Iran’s new leadership. President Vladimir Putin sent a congratulatory message to Mojtaba Khamenei after he was elevated to Iran’s new supreme leader, pledging Russia’s “unwavering support” and reaffirming that Moscow would remain a “reliable partner” to Tehran. Taken together, those signals suggest that geopolitical reality is far more complicated — and far more beneficial to the Kremlin than it may appear on the surface.
China: A Strategic Opportunity
China may benefit as well, though in a different way. U.S. allies in Asia have already expressed concern that a prolonged Middle East conflict could drain American weapons stockpiles and military focus that would otherwise be directed toward the Pacific. If the United States becomes heavily tied down in another Middle East war, its ability to deter China around Taiwan could weaken.
Strategic distraction can be as valuable as military victory.
Iran’s Hardliners: The Irony of War
One of the more surprising beneficiaries of the conflict may actually be the Iranian regime itself.
History shows that external military pressure often strengthens authoritarian governments rather than weakening them. War tends to produce a powerful rally-around-the-flag effect, allowing ruling elites to demand unity while sidelining dissent.
That dynamic appears to be unfolding in Iran now. In the midst of the escalating conflict, Mojtaba Khamenei — the son of longtime Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — has reportedly been elevated to assume leadership of the country, consolidating power among the most hardline factions of the Iranian political and security establishment.
Analysts say the move strengthens the influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the powerful military and intelligence force that already plays a dominant role in Iran’s politics and economy. Wartime conditions give such institutions even greater authority, often allowing them to tighten internal security, suppress protests, and justify expanded control in the name of national survival.
The irony is difficult to ignore. Military pressure intended to weaken the Iranian regime may instead help solidify it — empowering the very hardline leadership and security structures the conflict is supposed to challenge.
In other words, war can strengthen the very forces it aims to confront.
And the American Public?
If the list of beneficiaries includes governments, political leaders, oil producers, and defense industries, the American public is largely absent from it.
Instead, ordinary Americans are likely to feel the costs. Rising energy prices hit working families the hardest. For households already struggling with the cost of living, even modest increases at the pump can force painful choices. And gas prices are already rising.
It may feel uncomfortable to talk about money while lives are being lost in the Middle East. But people can mourn those caught in the crossfire and still worry about how the conflict will affect their own families.
According to AAA, the national average price for regular gasoline jumped about 27 cents in a single week, climbing above $3.30 per gallon, with analysts warning prices could approach $4 per gallon if the conflict continues to disrupt oil markets.
The last time prices spiked that quickly was March 2022, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The conflict also threatens global supply chains. The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway through which more than one-quarter of the world’s seaborne oil normally travels, is now under intense pressure.
Disruptions there could send shockwaves through global markets, raising prices for everything from transportation and food to pharmaceuticals and electronics.
Meanwhile, the broader economy shows signs of strain. The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently reported the U.S. economy lost roughly 92,000 jobs in February, adding to concerns about economic stability.
And if the conflict expands, American service members will bear the most serious risks of all. The danger is no longer theoretical. As of this week, at least seven U.S. service members have already been killed in operations connected to the Iran conflict, according to Pentagon reports.
Those losses are a reminder of something history has already taught us.
Wars rarely stay small.
The Real Question
Wars are often justified in the language of security and necessity.
But they also create very real political and economic winners.
In this conflict, those winners appear to include Israel, Russia, China, certain political actors in Washington — and even the hardline elements of the Iranian regime itself.
The question left hanging is simple:
What exactly does the American public gain from this war?
____________________________________________________________________________
Note from the Editor: We invite readers to share comments and perspectives with our newsroom. Send your thoughts, reactions, and arguments to the Warwick Valley Dispatch, editor@wvdispatch.com. Selected responses may be published in an upcoming issue(s).
