As the dust settles from what has come to be dubbed the "Farcical 12-Day War"—a brief but incendiary confrontation between Israel, the United States, and Iran—emerging facts point to a meticulously choreographed geopolitical spectacle. One that left no lasting strategic shift, but succeeded in three key outcomes: securing political lifelines for embattled leaders, inflating oil markets for short-term profiteering, and enriching the defence industry—particularly the manufacturers of so-called "bunker buster" munitions.
Iran Moved Its Uranium—Before the First Bomb Dropped
Credible intelligence, now corroborated by IAEA officials and leaked assessments from EU observers, confirms that in the days prior to the U.S. bombing campaign, Iran had transferred its stockpile of enriched uranium to other secret nuclear sites maintained by Iran. This relocation rendered the U.S. strikes on Natanz and Fordow effectively symbolic. The Pentagon has remained silent on the failure to neutralize Iran's nuclear infrastructure, while U.S. intelligence agencies have privately admitted that "the targets were politically calibrated, not strategically necessary."
An initial classified US assessment of Donald Trump’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities says they did not destroy two of the sites and likely only set back the nuclear program by a few months, according to two people familiar with the report.
The report produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) – the intelligence arm of the Pentagon – concluded key components of the nuclear program including centrifuges were capable of being restarted within months.
The findings by the DIA, which were based on a preliminary battle damage assessment conducted by US Central Command, which oversees US military operations in the Middle East, suggests Trump’s declaration about the sites being “obliterated” may have been "overstated".
Oil Price Volatility: A Manufactured Windfall
Within hours of the first airstrike, Brent crude surged in price. Energy companies and hedge funds with exposure to oil futures made billions. Notably, filings show that several politically connected investment firms—including those linked to allies of Donald Trump—placed heavy positions on rising oil volatility days before the bombing began. These trades are now under quiet scrutiny by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
This war, while brief, triggered global price shocks. Countries around the world were threatened by fuel inflation, while multinational petroleum giants potentially raked in windfall profits—despite the fact that actual supply disruptions were minimal.
As of writing, Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, fell 6.1% to $67.14 a barrel. West Texas Intermediate crude, the US oil benchmark, fell 6% to $64.37 a barrel. These levels are broadly comparable to the closing prices in the days before Israel first launched the unprecedented attack on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 13. This has caused general share prices to surge. Falling oil prices present opportunities for profit in various ways, including through short selling, investing in industries that benefit from lower energy costs, or using derivatives to speculate on price movements.
Profiteering by the Military-Industrial Complex
Chief among the beneficiaries were U.S. defence contractors—especially Boeing, which manufactures the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (commonly known as the "bunker buster") and Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Hughes, and Vought who are the main contractors of the Northrop B-2 Spirit (costing some U$2.2billion each) - the only aircraft currently capable of delivering the fourteen GBU-57 bombs used. These precision-guided munitions were never previously used in combat. Defence analysts suggest that, in response to the June 2025 strikes, the U.S. Air Force may have placed expedited replenishment orders for advanced munitions—including bunker buster bombs—potentially netting Boeing substantial short-term revenue, given that each one costs some U$13 million each (However, this has not been officially confirmed).
Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics—already trading near all-time highs—saw a further surge in stock prices across the 12-day span. Meanwhile, campaign donations from the defence sector to Republican and Likud-linked political committees skyrocketed, suggesting a concerted effort to capitalise politically on wartime economics.
The Fake Qatari Base Attack
Perhaps the most damning revelation is the now-debunked Iranian attack on the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Initially portrayed by both Washington and Tehran as a watershed moment of escalation, satellite analysis and eyewitness accounts reveal that the base was evacuated hours before the strike. No U.S. personnel were injured. No significant infrastructure was damaged. The strike, it turns out, was performative.
The exchange may be described as a "backchannel-managed event", i.e., a symbolic gesture only rather than an act of escalation. The limited nature of the attack, combined with prior notifications, suggests a mutual interest in avoiding further conflict while allowing each side to demonstrate a response to their domestic audiences. It appeared engineered to allow Trump and Netanyahu to justify retaliatory measures while enabling Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to save face domestically:
- The Wall Street Journal reported that Iran provided advance notice of the attack to Qatar, which in turn informed the United States. This early warning allowed for the evacuation of personnel and activation of air defences, resulting in no casualties.
- Reuters corroborated that Iranian officials notified Qatari authorities ahead of the missile strike, enabling successful interception of the missiles and preventing any injuries.
- The Times noted that President Trump referred to the Iranian attack as “very weak,” acknowledging the early warning that facilitated the interception of nearly all missiles.
Political Gains for Three Embattled Leaders
All three leaders—Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ali Khamenei—were facing mounting domestic crises before the war began.
Trump was battling plummeting approval ratings, legal entanglements, and intraparty rebellion. The war allowed him to pivot the narrative and present himself as a "decisive wartime president."
Netanyahu, on the brink of being ousted in a Likud leadership challenge, used the war to silence opposition, reassert control over the Israeli narrative, and side-line legal investigations into corruption.
Khamenei, weakened by youth-led protests and economic turmoil, seized the chance to rally nationalist sentiment, marginalize reformists, and reaffirm his grip on power.
Sachs: The Drumbeat of a Permanent War Machine
Renowned economist and global affairs expert Professor Jeffrey Sachs provides a sobering framework for understanding the events of the 12-Day War. According to Sachs, this conflict was not the result of presidential whim but of entrenched institutional momentum within the U.S. security state. He describes a calculated pattern of airstrikes, sanctions, and naval deployments as a “drumbeat of war” driven by the Pentagon, CIA, and military-industrial complex—entities with a vested interest in permanent confrontation.
“These are not isolated decisions,” Sachs said. “They’re part of the imperial construct of U.S. foreign policy.” Once the machinery of conflict is set in motion—aircraft carriers deployed, defence contracts signed—it becomes nearly impossible to stop. Sachs likens the build-up to a runaway train: “Once you start with navies, you’re talking about a war… and then you don’t know how to get out.”
He argues that just like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, the war with Iran reflects a playbook of escalation by a national security apparatus unchecked by democratic oversight. Public opposition, while present, is too often drowned out by defence-sector lobbying, media complicity, and strategic ambiguity.
Sachs calls for urgent public intervention: “If the American people don’t want this war… then they need to speak up right now.”
Conclusion: A Cynical Use of War
When war is manufactured for profit and political redemption, it exposes a grotesque failure of global governance and democratic accountability. The world deserves more than theatrics scripted in backrooms and marketed as diplomacy.
It’s not just that the war was avoidable. It was engineered—with full knowledge of the consequences.
Comments
Post a Comment