Listen to the article
Crowds assembled in Tehran’s Enqelab early on April 8, 2026. As word spread of a two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran, cameras captured the mixture of relief and weariness that descends upon a city under bombardment. On the same day, analysts were already using updated models in trading rooms in Houston, Singapore, and London. Not on casualties. not on the results of politics. on fertilizer futures, semiconductor supply margins, shipping rerouting costs, and oil revenues. Large, obvious amounts of grief and devastation are caused by wars. They also generate winners. It is necessary to look away from the battlefield in order to find the latter.
The nations that sit outside the conflict zone and pump gas and oil were always going to be the most obvious beneficiaries. When the conflict broke out in early March 2026, the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow passageway through which about 25% of the world’s seaborne oil flows, was effectively closed. Brent crude increased by more than 20% in just one week, briefly reaching $110 to $120 per barrel. That price increase was pure profit for Norway, Canada, and Russia, three major net energy exporters whose capacity to sell overseas was unaffected by the unrest in the Middle East. In just the first two weeks of the conflict, Russia reportedly made about €6 billion from the export of fossil fuels, with additional tax revenues estimated to be between $1.3 and $1.9 billion. There was no missile fired by the Kremlin. It was not required to.
| Conflict Timeline | The US–Iran conflict began in early March 2026; a two-week ceasefire was announced around April 8, 2026, with crowds gathering in Tehran’s Enqelab Square to mark the announcement; the Strait of Hormuz was set to temporarily reopen |
|---|---|
| The Strait of Hormuz | Approximately 20–25% of the world’s seaborne oil passes through the Strait, along with roughly one-fifth of global LNG shipments; its closure or disruption immediately affects global energy prices and supply chains across Asia, Europe, and beyond |
| Oil Price Surge | Within the first week of conflict, Brent crude surged more than 20%, briefly reaching $110–$120 per barrel; analysts warned prices could reach $150–$200 per barrel if the Strait remained blocked; a prolonged conflict scenario could sustain prices near $130/barrel |
| Clear Geopolitical Winners | According to foreign policy scholar Richard Haass (Project Syndicate, April 10, 2026): China and Russia were the clearest winners; Gulf Arab states suffered reputational damage; the US and Israel gained the least despite initiating the action |
| Energy Exporter Windfall | Countries identified as direct economic beneficiaries: Norway, Russia, Canada, and the United States (net exporter since the shale revolution); Russia alone reportedly earned ~€6 billion from fossil fuel exports in the conflict’s first two weeks, with $1.3–$1.9 billion in additional tax revenue from rising oil prices |
| Energy Importer Losses | Hardest-hit economies: South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, India, China, France, Germany, and the UK — all heavily dependent on energy imports; higher oil prices squeeze household purchasing power and raise inflation, particularly damaging in countries with already-strained government finances |
| Unexpected Chokepoint: Helium | Qatar produces approximately 40% of the world’s helium supply — a critical input for semiconductor manufacturing; conflict-related disruption to Qatari exports briefly threatened global chip production timelines, raising questions about supply chain concentration that most analysts had overlooked |
| Fertilizer Supply Risk | The Gulf region is a significant producer of ammonia and nitrogen — key components in synthetic fertilizers; disruptions to these supplies during the conflict raised food security concerns in import-dependent developing nations, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia |
| Defense Industry | US and European defense contractors — including Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and BAE Systems — saw immediate share price increases as governments accelerated procurement orders and defense budget discussions intensified across NATO members and Gulf states seeking new supply relationships |
| Diplomatic Winners | China, which avoided direct military involvement while maintaining economic ties with Iran, and Russia, which supplied energy to buyers diverted from Hormuz-dependent Gulf routes, both expanded their geopolitical influence without incurring direct military costs |
As is typical of its relationship with oil economics in general, the United States is in a more complex position. Over the past 15 years, the shale revolution has changed America from being one of the world’s biggest energy importers to a modest net exporter. This means that when global energy prices rise, the nation as a whole gains a little, but the profits go to shareholders and executives in the Texas oil patch, while Ohio and Michigan consumers pay more at the gas pump. That distribution has a well-known irony that, as usual, applied here. While average households watched their energy bills rise and filed that discomfort somewhere between frustration and resignation, American oil producers were enjoying their best weeks in years.
Additionally, the conflict exposed a number of supply chain vulnerabilities that most analysts had not been closely monitoring. This is the aspect of the conflict that is often overlooked in favor of the oil price headlines. About 40% of the helium used in the production of semiconductors is produced in Qatar. Chipmakers in Taiwan and South Korea found themselves rushing to evaluate inventory buffers and alternative sourcing options for a gas that receives virtually no mainstream coverage until it vanishes when Qatari export routes became uncertain in the early stages of the conflict. The Gulf region’s contributions to the world’s fertilizer production—nitrogen and ammonia—caused a parallel concern in agricultural supply chains. To put it another way, the conflict was more than just an energy story. It told the tale of everything that passes through or around the Gulf and that the world economy had tacitly assumed would always be accessible.
Then there is geopolitical accounting, which is equally illuminating but distinct from economic accounting. Shortly after the announcement of the ceasefire, foreign policy expert Richard Haass provided a preliminary scorecard in Project Syndicate: China and Russia emerged victorious, the Gulf Arab states’ reputations were damaged by their various hedging actions, and the United States and Israel, who were supposedly the ones who started the conflict, benefited the least from the entire exercise. It is worthwhile to sit with that assessment. Throughout the conflict, China avoided direct military exposure, kept economic ties with Iran, and watched as its two main strategic rivals—the United States and its Gulf allies—absorbed costs and controversy. Russia supplied energy to consumers who were no longer able to obtain it through routes that relied on Hormuz. Without deploying a single soldier, both nations increased their influence.
Naturally, the defense sector profited. It always does. Almost instantly, shares of Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, and their European counterparts increased as governments started to speed up procurement talks and NATO members reexamined declining defense budget commitments. According to reports, several Western defense contractors were in preliminary talks about new supply arrangements with Gulf states whose own security architectures had been exposed by the scope and speed of the conflict. In this way, the machinery that powers the war machine is structurally unaffected by the result.
Whether the winners remain victorious is the more difficult question and the one that usually remains unanswered after disputes are resolved. High oil prices boost Russia’s energy earnings, but long-term instability and the global drive toward energy diversification that each Middle East crisis intensifies are not in Moscow’s best interests. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, which already ranks among the richest countries in the world per capita, absorbs the windfall from this conflict as it has from others. Oil sands producers in Canada reported better quarters. These are actual gains that are stored in actual accounts. Rather than anything approaching intentional strategy, they were earned—if that’s the right word—by geography and circumstance. When you watch this play out from a distance, you are more impressed by the winners’ almost mechanical predictability of who they would be before the first shot was fired than by their cunning.
