Global energy markets and arms industries profit as US-Israel escalate Iran tensions: A systemic cost-benefit analysis

Indigenous and traditional knowledge systems universally reject resource wars as violations of land and water sovereignty, as seen in the Standing Rock protests against pipelines or the Māori fight against deep-sea oil drilling in New Zealand. These systems prioritise intergenerational stewardship over short-term extractive profits, offering a framework to critique the US-Israel-Iran conflict as a symptom of global resource colonialism. The framing’s silence on indigenous resistance reflects its Eurocentric bias, which treats land as a commodity rather than a sacred commons.

The US-Israel alliance against Iran is part of a 70-year pattern of Western intervention in the Middle East, from the 1953 coup in Iran to the 2003 Iraq War, where economic sanctions and military threats were used to control resource flows. The JCPOA’s collapse in 2018 demonstrated how economic warfare (e.g., secondary sanctions on third-party firms) destabilises civilian economies, a tactic pioneered during the Cold War. Proxy conflicts in Yemen and Syria further reveal how regional powers exploit external tensions to consolidate power, with Iran and Israel acting as proxies for Saudi Arabia and the US, respectively.

In African traditions, conflict is often framed as a communal rupture requiring restorative justice, contrasting with the Western focus on punitive military solutions. Asian philosophies like *ahimsa* (non-violence) or Confucian *ren* (benevolence) would critique the framing of war as an economic opportunity, instead emphasising collective well-being. Latin American *buen vivir* (living well) principles reject extractivist models that fuel resource wars, offering alternatives like community-based energy cooperatives.

Economic models of war often rely on flawed assumptions about rational actors and linear causality, ignoring feedback loops like sanctions-induced hyperinflation or arms races’ unintended consequences. Studies show that military spending crowds out social spending, with a 1% increase in military expenditure correlating to a 0.5% decrease in healthcare and education budgets (SIPRI, 2023). The framing’s focus on 'winners' and 'losers' obscures systemic risks like nuclear escalation or climate feedback loops from fossil fuel extraction.

Artistic expressions from the region, such as Iranian cinema (e.g., Abbas Kiarostami’s *Taste of Cherry*) or Palestinian poetry, depict war’s human cost in ways that economic analyses cannot. Spiritual traditions like Sufism or Kabbalah frame conflict as a shadow of collective trauma, urging reconciliation over retaliation. Music and protest songs (e.g., Fela Kuti’s *Zombie*) have historically exposed the absurdity of war profiteering, offering a counter-narrative to market-driven violence.

Scenario modelling suggests that continued escalation could trigger a global energy shock, with oil prices spiking to $150/barrel and triggering recessions in import-dependent nations like India or Turkey. Alternative futures include a regional de-escalation via EU-led diplomacy or a collapse of the petrodollar system, which would redistribute power to renewable energy hubs. The framing’s lack of future-oriented analysis ignores how climate change will exacerbate resource conflicts, making fossil fuel dependence a existential risk.

Marginalised voices include Iranian women’s rights activists facing dual oppression from the regime and sanctions, Palestinian refugees in Lebanon trapped in economic limbo, and Yemeni civilians starved by Saudi-led blockades. African and Latin American communities bear the brunt of proxy wars, with their lands used for arms trafficking or resource extraction. The framing’s focus on 'winners' erases the 99% of Iranians living under sanctions or the 30,000+ Palestinian children killed in Gaza since 2008, whose suffering is framed as collateral damage.