By Sheikh Omar
War costs money, but not always for those who gain. The war with Iran shows how a conflict’s costs and rewards can move in opposite directions. American taxpayers are funding a costly military campaign in Iran. Ordinary families pay more for gasoline, diesel, transport and daily goods. Across the world, countries with no role in the fighting face higher energy prices and broken trade routes.
At the same time, some of the largest defense and energy companies report rising sales, bigger order books and new opportunities.
This gap raises a basic question: when war creates large private gains at public expense, how does that shape the decisions that keep the fighting going?
The Public Pays the Bill
According to a Pentagon estimate reported by Reuters, the Iran war had cost approximately $47.1 billion through mid-October 2026. About $29 billion of that amount was attributed to replacing expended munitions, accounting for more than 60 percent of the total. The estimate still leaves out some costs, including repairs to damaged bases and longer-term obligations such as veterans’ care.
The Congressional Budget Office earlier projected that operations could add another $2–3 billion each month, depending on the intensity of fighting.
American households feel the pressure at the pump. On October 27, the American Automobile Association recorded a national average of about $4.27 a gallon for regular gasoline and $6.35 for diesel. Higher diesel prices raise costs for trucking, farming and food distribution. Even people who never drive end up paying more for everyday goods.
The irony is that some of the same conditions imposing these costs on consumers are creating substantial business opportunities elsewhere in the American economy.
The Expanding Business of Weapons
The defense industry illustrates this contrast particularly clearly.
On October 22, Lockheed Martin reported third-quarter sales of $20.7 billion, an 11% increase from the previous year. Its net earnings rose 14% to approximately $1.8 billion.
More revealing was its order backlog, which reached a record $292 billion. This included approximately $52.5 billion associated with a multiyear award for PAC-3 missile interceptors.
These missiles are used in air-defense systems, and demand has increased as American and allied forces replenish weapons consumed in several conflicts, including the Iran war.
A similar trend is visible at RTX, formerly Raytheon Technologies. According to its October 20 financial results, the company’s Raytheon division recorded quarterly operating profit of approximately $1.13 billion, a 32% increase from a year earlier. The division’s sales rose 14%, supported by growing demand for missile and air-defense systems.
The business logic is straightforward. Weapons fired in war must be replaced. Ongoing operations create steady demand for ammunition, missiles, aircraft maintenance and related services. Governments pay the bill. Manufacturers gain the orders. That difference creates a powerful economic incentive, even if it does not prove that any single company wants the war to continue.
The Iran war exposes a basic imbalance in the political economy of modern conflict: public budgets carry the financial load, private companies capture large commercial gains, and people around the world absorb the wider economic damage
Energy Profits During an Energy Crisis
The energy industry presents a different but equally important picture.
The disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has increased the cost of transporting and refining oil. Consumers face higher fuel prices, while some producers, refiners, and commodity traders benefit from market volatility.
On October 16, Reuters reported that ExxonMobil expected higher refining margins to increase its third-quarter downstream earnings by approximately $4.5 billion compared with the previous quarter. That was a company projection, not a final reported profit figure. Other major energy companies have also anticipated substantial gains from refining and trading. They include European firms such as Shell, BP, and TotalEnergies.
This distinction matters. The beneficiaries of the energy crisis are not exclusively American corporations. International energy markets distribute gains and losses among producers, refiners, traders, consumers, and importing countries.
The United States, however, occupies a relatively advantageous position because of its enormous domestic energy production. According to the US Energy Information Administration, America has become a major net exporter of petroleum products and other energy resources, although it continues to import significant quantities of crude oil. Greater energy production provides economic flexibility and strategic leverage. But it does not protect American consumers from international oil prices.
There is another political dimension. On October 22, President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to support petroleum production, refining, and related infrastructure. The measure allows financial incentives for qualifying energy projects under national-defense provisions.
From Corporate Profits to Political Influence
The relationship between military expenditure and corporate power did not begin with Iran.
A 2025 study by Brown University’s Costs of War project and the Quincy Institute found that private contractors received approximately $2.4 trillion from the Pentagon between 2020 and 2024. Five companies alone received approximately $771 billion in contracts: Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman.
These were contract values, not net corporate profits, and they preceded the current Iran war. Nevertheless, they demonstrate the extraordinary concentration of public defense spending among a small number of private businesses. The study also identified extensive political lobbying, campaign contributions, and movement of personnel between government and industry. By 2024, the arms industry employed approximately 950 lobbyists.
Companies that depend heavily on government defense contracts have a direct financial interest in military spending. They also possess substantial resources to influence public debates and policy priorities. Through lobbying, campaign financing, industry associations, and advisory relationships, they can seek to shape the political environment in which decisions about military budgets and weapons procurement are made.
The commercial interests of major contractors can therefore become difficult to separate from the political arguments used to justify ever-expanding military expenditure.
The concern is not that corporate profits alone determine whether a war continues. It is that companies benefiting from prolonged military expenditure may have strong incentives to support policies that sustain or expand it, while the public bears the costs.
The US Government Accountability Office has also documented persistent problems of excessive costs and delays in major weapons programs. These weaknesses reinforce the importance of independent oversight.
The Costs Extend Beyond America
The economic effects of the Iran war reach far beyond the United States. China, India, Europe and many developing countries depend on imported energy. Shipping delays raise transport costs, hurt industry and squeeze household budgets.
The burden falls heaviest on poorer nations. The UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has warned that nearly one billion people live in vulnerable economies that are highly exposed to fuel-price shocks.
If refined petroleum prices rise by 50 percent for a sustained period, their annual net oil-import bills could increase by more than $20 billion, assuming import volumes remain at 2024 levels. This is a projected scenario, not an estimate of losses already incurred.
For some countries, the additional cost could reach 5 percent of GDP or more. According to UNCTAD, the estimated burden could reach 7.3 percent of GDP for Mauritania, 6.3 percent for the Gambia, and 5 percent for Burkina Faso.
Countries such as Bangladesh, Mauritania, and the Gambia have little influence over the military decisions that drive these disruptions, yet their populations must bear the economic consequences: higher transport costs, rising food prices and less money for health, education and development.
The benefits of war-related business are concentrated in a few industries. The costs spread across borders and ordinary lives.
The Iran war exposes a basic imbalance in the political economy of modern conflict: public budgets carry the financial load, private companies capture large commercial gains, and people around the world absorb the wider economic damage.
War is sometimes justified in the name of national security. Its true cost cannot be measured only by military goals or government ledgers. A system that claims public accountability must also ask who receives the money, who shapes the decisions, and who ultimately pays the price.