By: Shatha kalel
Introduction: What Are We Not Seeing?
Not every war is decided on the battlefield, and not every victory is measured by the number of missiles launched or aircraft deployed. Conflicts have another dimension—one that does not appear in military briefings or press conferences. Instead, it unfolds in oil markets, insurance premiums, capital flows, defense industries, and the decisions of investors.
This article presents an analytical hypothesis. It does not claim that a secret agreement exists between the United States and Iran, nor does it rely on documents that prove such a claim. Rather, it begins with a question worthy of discussion: Can wars—even between declared adversaries—produce outcomes that serve the parallel interests of multiple parties without implying direct coordination between them?
History offers many examples of rivals emerging from the same crisis with different forms of gain. For that reason, analyzing the political and economic consequences of conflict may, in some cases, be more revealing than simply following developments on the battlefield.
Blind Spot One: When Fear Becomes a Global Commodity
In the modern economy, value is no longer limited to oil, natural gas, or gold. Risk itself can become a tradable commodity. As tensions rise in a strategic region such as the Strait of Hormuz, shipping insurance premiums increase, maritime transportation costs climb, and investors become more cautious in their decisions.
Oil exports do not have to stop for markets to react. In many cases, it is enough for market participants to believe that the likelihood of disruption has increased. Prices then begin rising in anticipation of future risks. As a result, the economic impact of war often begins before the largest battles take place because markets respond to expectations as much as they respond to actual events.
This raises an important analytical question: If the cost of fear increases with every escalation, which sectors or countries benefit from that increase, and who ultimately bears its cost?
Blind Spot Two: Oil—The Weapon That Works Without a Single Shot Being Fired
Oil is commonly viewed as an economic resource, but during times of crisis it also becomes a geopolitical instrument. Even the possibility of disruption in the Strait of Hormuz can prompt markets to reassess global energy prices.
This does not mean that all oil-producing countries benefit equally, nor does it mean that all importing nations suffer to the same extent. Higher oil prices may generate additional short-term revenue for some exporters, while oil-importing economies face increased costs for fuel, transportation, manufacturing, and food.
Here lies an important paradox: the threat of closing strategic maritime routes may have a greater economic impact than an actual closure because it keeps markets in a constant state of uncertainty, making the cost of risk part of the price of every barrel of oil.
Blind Spot Three: The Economics of War Extend Beyond the Battlefield
As regional tensions intensify, demand increases for air defense systems, drones, ammunition, security services, and military technologies. The effects are not limited to governments. Defense contractors, maritime security firms, and insurance companies may also experience greater demand for their services, even while facing higher operational risks.
This does not mean that war is economically beneficial overall. The human and material costs remain extremely high. However, it demonstrates that the economic consequences of conflict are unevenly distributed. While some industries may experience temporary growth, others face contraction, uncertainty, and financial pressure.
Blind Spot Four: The Strait of Hormuz—More Than a Maritime Passage
Many people see the Strait of Hormuz simply as a route through which oil tankers pass. In reality, its importance extends far beyond shipping. It is a strategic chokepoint that influences global energy security, maritime stability, and international politics.
As risks in this corridor increase, so does the strategic value of countries capable of protecting—or influencing—maritime navigation. At the same time, alternative energy routes, including pipelines and other export terminals, become increasingly valuable. Consequently, periods of crisis may encourage governments to reconsider their energy security strategies and diversify their supply routes.
In other words, conflict does not merely alter the movement of ships; it can reshape investment patterns, strategic alliances, and geopolitical priorities for years to come.
Can Outcomes Matter More Than Intentions?
Analysts may disagree on the causes of escalation, but they generally agree that its consequences redistribute gains and losses. Therefore, the more compelling question is not simply why a crisis erupted, but who benefited from its consequences?
The answer does not lie in a single theory that explains everything. Instead, it requires examining a range of indicators, including:
Who benefited from higher energy prices?
Which countries experienced increased defense spending?
Who bore the higher costs of shipping and insurance?
How did the crisis reshape regional influence and investment decisions?
These questions do not prove the existence of hidden understandings or secret agreements. Rather, they help illustrate that the economic consequences of war are often complex and multidimensional, and that those who benefit from the effects of conflict are not necessarily the same parties that initiated or concluded the fighting.
Conclusion
Perhaps the most important story of this crisis is not what happened on the battlefield, but what happened afterward—in oil markets, insurance premiums, investor behavior, and energy alliances.
Wars often end with political agreements or ceasefires, but their economic consequences can endure for years, reshaping national priorities, investment strategies, and geopolitical relationships.
Perhaps the most thought-provoking question remains unanswered: If every side claims to have paid a heavy price, who ultimately emerged with the greatest economic and political gains? And can an examination of outcomes sometimes reveal what military statements alone cannot?
Economic Studies Unit – North America Office
Center for Linkage Studies and Strategic Research