Iran War winners & Losers
Financial Winners and Losers in the Iran War
We all know the current conflict centred on Iran has triggered a major energy shock across global markets. Oil prices have surged, supply routes have been disrupted, and growth expectations have weakened. The same lines are repeated daily across the internet.
What is discussed far less is the investment angle. From that perspective, this environment creates a clear pattern of winners and losers — both during the war and in the period that follows. As with every major shift, capital does not disappear; it moves.
During the War: Clear Winners
Energy producers
Oil and gas firms are the most direct beneficiaries. Higher prices drive stronger profits, improved cash flow, and higher dividends.
Energy traders and commodity firms
Volatility creates opportunity. Price swings and supply disruption allow traders to profit from imbalance.
Defence and security
Government spending rises to protect infrastructure and maintain stability. This extends beyond prime contractors to supply chains — a wider cascade of public spending into the private sector.
Alternative energy
Renewables are no longer a niche. They are becoming central to energy strategy as countries seek secure and stable supply.
In the UK, Keir Starmer has made clear that green and renewable energy is the long-term direction of travel. Agree or disagree, the policy signal is strong.
This is not limited to the UK. Across Europe, the US, and parts of Asia, governments are aligning policy with energy security and independence from unstable regions.
When government policy and real-world pressure move in the same direction, markets tend to follow. For investors, that alignment is often where the most durable opportunities sit.
During the War: Clear Losers
Airlines and transport
Fuel costs rise sharply, and demand weakens as travel becomes more expensive.
Manufacturing and heavy industry
Energy-intensive sectors face higher costs and reduced competitiveness.
Consumers and retail
Rising living costs reduce disposable income and limit non-essential spending.
Energy-importing economies
Countries reliant on imported fuel face inflation, currency pressure, and slower growth.
After the War: The Shift in Winners
Even if the conflict ends, markets are unlikely to return to previous conditions quickly. Energy prices may remain elevated, and supply chains will take time to stabilise.
Long-term Winners
Renewable energy and electrification
Increased investment and government backing make this the strongest structural growth area.
Energy infrastructure and storage
Grid upgrades, battery systems, and domestic energy resilience become essential.
Domestic energy producers
Stable producers outside conflict zones gain strategic importance.
Long-term Losers
Fossil fuel importers
Continued exposure to price shocks and policy pressure to diversify.
High-energy industries
Manufacturing may shift towards regions with cheaper or more secure energy.
Fragile financial sectors
Slower growth and tighter conditions expose weaknesses in credit and lending.
The Bottom Line
Short term: energy producers and defence benefit, while transport, consumers, and importers face pressure.
Medium to long term: renewables and energy security strengthen, while reliance on fossil fuels becomes a structural weakness.
The key predictable takeaway is simple:
markets reward control of energy and penalise dependence on it.
This is, of course, a matter of judgement. But the direction of travel is becoming hard to ignore.
These are the points I am discussing with our portfolio managers.
If your portfolio or fund managers are not factoring in the shift towards energy security and renewables — driven by both policy and events — then serious questions should be asked.
At the very least, they should be able to explain how they are positioned for it.
From the Desk of Andy Brooks
April 7th, 2026.