Do Seven Sisters Fuel Conflicts Around the World?

The Seven Sisters, a group of seven major Western oil companies that dominated the international petroleum industry during much of the 20th century, symbolized the concentration of corporate power over energy resources. Today, a broader question deserves attention: do powerful commercial interests benefit so substantially from conflict that they have an incentive to sustain geopolitical tensions?

The military-industrial complex, Wall Street, media houses and shipping companies operate in different sectors, yet conflicts can create lucrative opportunities for all of them. Defence contractors may secure additional orders, financial markets experience heightened trading activity, media organizations attract larger audiences, and shipping companies charge higher rates to reflect security risks. Oil producers and traders may also benefit from rising prices, although others suffer substantial losses.

The US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28, 2026, provides a compelling case for examining this hypothesis. Disruptions to energy supplies and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz have intensified volatility in global oil markets. On October 26, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude settled at US$101.76 per barrel, while Brent crude closed at US$115.81. The resulting differential of approximately US$14 illustrates how geopolitical disruptions can reshape commodity markets. However, price movements alone do not establish manipulation or prove that commercial interests caused the conflict.

The more consequential question is whether these beneficiaries merely exploit wars or also influence decisions that prolong them. Answering it requires examining corporate lobbying, political financing, defence contracts, media ownership and the relationships between business interests and policymakers. Profiting from a conflict is not, in itself, evidence of having engineered it.

The human and economic costs of war are enormous. Ordinary citizens face higher energy bills, inflation, disrupted trade and insecurity, while particular companies may enjoy exceptional profits. These unequal outcomes raise legitimate questions about accountability and the influence of vested interests over public policy.

The Seven Sisters no longer exercise the same dominance they once did, but the wider relationship between corporate power and geopolitical conflict merits scrutiny. The essential question is not simply who profits from war, but whether those profits influence decisions about when wars begin—and when they end.

Will Netanyahu Accept Defeat?

Benjamin Netanyahu’s possible defeat would be more than the political downfall of Israel’s longest-serving prime minister. It could expose personal vulnerabilities, unsettle hardline allies, affect defence-related interests and challenge a wider network of political influence that I describe as “the syndicate.”

The first issue is Netanyahu’s personal future. Facing corruption charges since his indictment in 2019, he has a legal battle that losing office would not automatically resolve in his favour. Although imprisonment is not an inevitable consequence of electoral defeat, the prospect of losing political influence could make his future considerably more uncertain. His political survival and legal predicament therefore form an important part of the debate.

The second issue concerns Israel’s hardliners. Netanyahu has been central to the coalition politics that enabled right-wing and religious parties to exercise considerable influence over government policy. His departure could leave some of these allies without their principal political broker, forcing them to reconsider their strategy and search for alternative leadership.

The third dimension involves the military-industrial complex. Prolonged regional conflicts have sustained demand for weapons and defence technology. A change of government would not necessarily weaken Israel’s defence industry, but it could alter procurement priorities, strategic calculations and the political justification for military operations.

The fourth and most consequential dimension is what I call “the syndicate” - a wider network of political, strategic and economic interests whose objectives may overlap with Netanyahu’s continued leadership. His close relationship with Donald Trump adds an international dimension to this argument. Whether Netanyahu’s departure would constitute a setback for this wider network, however, depends on how far its interests are tied to him personally rather than to institutions and policies that could survive his departure.

The central question is whether Netanyahu would accept not only an electoral verdict but also the consequences of losing power. Israel’s parliamentary system makes coalition negotiations crucial, while the judicial process would continue to follow its own course.

Ultimately, Netanyahu’s political future will depend on voters, coalition arithmetic and the legal process. But the implications of his departure could extend well beyond one individual. The real test would be whether Israel’s political system can manage a change of leadership while holding its leaders accountable—and whether the interests built around Netanyahu could retain their influence without him.

Even Trump Is Subservient to the Syndicate

The US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28, 2026, has entered its seventh month without a decisive outcome or a credible exit strategy. This raises an uncomfortable question: is the war being fought purely for strategic objectives—or are powerful vested interests benefiting from perpetual uncertainty?

I call these interests “The Syndicate”—an informal alignment of the military-industrial complex, oil and gas companies, Wall Street participants and media houses. Their interests may differ, but uncertainty serves them all. Prolonged conflict means more weapons orders, volatile energy prices, speculative opportunities and a continuous supply of headlines.

In this equation, President Donald Trump increasingly appears less like the sole architect of American policy and more like an “Operator”—a political leader who converts confrontation into leverage while powerful economic interests benefit from its consequences.

The circumstances surrounding the war are particularly revealing. Washington launched military action without securing the full backing of its European allies. For months, US military installations across the Gulf faced Iranian retaliation, while Israel received extensive American military and diplomatic protection. Yet the conflict continued, with no clear political settlement in sight.

More alarming is speculation that Washington could eventually consider using nuclear weapons if conventional military options become exhausted. Even without accepting such speculation as fact, its emergence illustrates how dangerously far the escalation has travelled.

America’s political system is formally accountable to voters, but money exercises enormous influence over elections and policymaking. Corporations and wealthy individuals spend billions seeking access and influence, raising an uncomfortable question - does political power ultimately serve voters—or those capable of financing it?

Trump continues to command strong support among America’s wealthiest constituencies. If that political-economic alliance remains intact, attempts to remove him may continue to falter, while his political future could remain far stronger than public sentiment suggests.

Perhaps the real question is not who controls Trump, but who benefits from endless uncertainty?

The answer may explain why, even in the world’s most powerful democracy, US president Trump himself could be subservient to the Syndicate.