By Betsey Piette
April 21, 2026

U.S. President Donald Trump’s criminal attacks on Iran have been called a “war of choice.” But the question remains: whose choice? It is highly unlikely that the U.S. capitalist class would let Trump or any U.S. president engage them in a war without their consent and backing.

Trump supporters include major defense contractors — Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing and Northrop Grumman — who gained a $200 billion windfall from this war, according to Time Magazine, due to increased weapons production plus the need to replace multiple expensive military aircraft downed by the Iranian military. (Mar. 19)

But the bigger capitalist winners are energy companies, which stand to make $234 billion by the end of 2026 if the price of oil continues to average $100 a barrel, according to an analysis by Global Witness. The world’s top 100 oil and gas companies “banked more than $30 million every hour in unearned profit in the first month of the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran,” according to the Guardian (April 15).

War profitable for LNG exporters

Globally, so far, the biggest beneficiaries of Trump’s war have been Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron and ExxonMobil, but the war has also been a big profit boost for U.S. energy companies that export liquefied natural gas (LNG).

LNG company CEOs from Energy Transfer Partners, Occidental Petroleum and Continental Resources donated over $96 million to Trump’s 2024 campaign, according to Brennan Center for Justice. (Sept. 15, 2025) As payback, Trump promoted reducing any remaining environmental restrictions on the production of fossil fuels — of concern because of their high release of methane gas — while cutting funding and eliminating existing federal programs promoting renewable wind and solar energy.

Since the technology became possible, both Democratic and Republican administrations have promoted exporting LNG. After decades of restrictions on U.S. gas exports, Barack Obama authorized the first permits for commercial LNG exports during the shale gas (fracking) boom, setting the stage for the U.S. to become a major global energy exporter.

In his first term, Trump prioritized LNG exports to achieve “energy dominance.” Regulatory hurdles were reduced, and export capacity was greatly increased, expanding U.S. LNG sales globally. Bowing to environmental concerns, former President Joe Biden was slower to approve exports, but in his second term Trump reversed Biden’s restrictions, returning to more aggressive expansion of LNG exports by prioritizing deregulation.

A notable exception under Biden was the U.S.-backed sabotage of Russia’s underwater Nord Stream 1 and 2 oil pipelines that supplied Europe with gas early in the Ukraine war — an attempt to force EU countries to accept the alternative U.S. LNG imports.

Yet due to the high cost and complex steps involved in liquefying natural gas, on top of shipping expenses, U.S. LNG imports are not seen as a viable alternative to gas imported from West Asia or Russia. EU nations also have environmental restrictions against importing LNG.

With his early 2025 tariff demands, Trump made the import of U.S. LNG a key, even explicit part of trade negotiations. The U.S. pressured allies, including South Korea, Japan, the European Union and East Asian countries including India, the Philippines and Vietnam to import more LNG.

While blocking Chinese LNG vessels from docking at U.S. ports, Trump pressured Taiwan, Korea and Japan to invest in a pipeline project in Alaska and LNG shipbuilding in the U.S. (New York Times, April 24, 2025)

China’s renewable energy options

Multiple wars in West Asia have been fueled by the drive for energy industry profits and regional domination, but the key difference this time is that countries previously dependent on fossil fuels now have a viable alternative through renewable energy.

China’s advances in renewable energy sources offer alternative choices even for Taiwan. Officials in the Philippines are now looking to advance solar capacity in order to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Vietnam is developing a nuclear power plant while expanding offshore wind. Indonesia is advancing a major hydropower plant for its industrial sector. Spain, one of the EU countries most opposed to the U.S. war in Iran, has developed renewable energy sources making it 75% independent from fossil fuels.

Trump and his corporate energy backers may have seen the war on Iran, including restricting energy exports from West Asia, as an opportunity to increase demand for their more expensive LNG exports. But the opposite may be happening, as more countries decide to seek renewable energy sources based on the Chinese model.

Whatever the outcome of this war — and it appears that Iran’s position will prevail — a key demand has to be that oil and gas companies, along with weapons manufacturers, must pick up the devastating costs of this war, including the impact on consumers and reparations to Iran.