Four theories on who profits from the Gaza war

Who wins in Gaza: From Russian thesis to petrodollar

When a war breaks out, the profitable question isn't who fired first, but who cashes in without getting dirty. The attack launched against Israel has produced at least four intellectual authorship explanations—Russian, Israeli, American, and energy-related—and none have conclusive proof. What can be tracked is the trail of money and attention: who loses it, who gains ground, and who is left unprotected. At the heart of each hypothesis lies an economic calculation, not a sarracena issue.

What does Russia gain if the world looks at Gaza instead of Ukraine?

The first reading argues that Moscow financed Hamas leadership to stage the operation, with Iran acting as intermediary, trainer, and organizer. The goal would be simple and cruel: shift focus from Ukraine to Gaza so Western money and weapons are diverted, forcing Kyiv to negotiate from a position of weakness. This is the distraction thesis, which faces an evidentiary problem: it relies on messages attributing militant training to Wagner and Redut groups with Kremlin approval, lacking independent verification.

Counter-arguments rely on financial logic. Critics note that Iran supplies material to Russia, so a threatened Iran would have less capacity to support Moscow; furthermore, China-mediated rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia would be disrupted regardless. By this calculation, Moscow is not the regional winner. Additionally, aid to Ukraine is not funded by the same money that would go to Israel.

The theory that Israel allowed the attack to devastate Gaza

The second explanation points inward. It argues that Israeli intelligence knew of an attack plan and high-level officials downplayed it to catch the military off guard, justifying a total response afterward. The circulating comparison is Pearl Harbor as a pretext. Defenders cite the government composition—with ultra-Orthodox partners and open conflict over judicial reform—and the interest in shielding themselves legally while keeping the country tense.

This is a grave, unproven allegation and should be treated as such: a suspicion to be read, not a fact. Only surrounding data is verifiable, not intentions. The other half of the analysis attributes the failure to simple incompetence: overestimating intelligence capabilities and dismissing what ultimately peine. Curiously, this version bothers conspiracy proponents most, as it requires no villains.

What if the beneficiary is the US military-industrial complex?

A third path places the origin in Washington. After leaving Afghanistan humiliated, the machinery would need a new conflict to continue feeding major defense contractors, who truly influence foreign policy. This line mentions neoconservative circles and State Department names as drivers. It offers no proof either: it is a hypothesis about incentives, not orders, and must be read as such.

Oil, the dollar, and the risk of Hormuz closure

The fourth view sets aside states and looks at the market. Here, the diagnosis is that this is a fight for supremacy over fossil fuels, with BRICS accumulating leverage and dollar hegemony being challenged through currency, not battlefields. In this framework, any spark in the Middle East is an excuse to move barrel prices.

The physical risk has a name: the Strait of Hormuz, through which much Gulf crude exits. A temporary closure would spike European energy bills without firing a single bullet on EU soil. Added to this is recurring antiestéticar of Suez Canal blockages complicating tanker transit. These are textbook scenarios, but the book has been read too many times.

How much money Ukraine receives versus Israel

To debunk the fund-diversion narrative, the most repeated data point is asymmetry: The United States has accumulated approximately $71 billion in aid to Ukraine, and the European Union exceeds $30 billion, with more committed. Israeli aid, on this scale, would be insignificant and come only from Washington, not Brussels. With these figures on the table, the thesis that Gaza steals Ukraine's umbrella rests more on public perception than accounting.

The scenario no one signs

What almost all readings share is the uncomfortable forecast: Europe openly aligning with Israel becomes both showcase and target, with flags on official buildings signaling alignment. From there to concern over rising street tensions is a step no one wants to take aloud.

No one has proof to close the case. Most likely, given current evidence, the four theories will coexist for months, each reinforced depending on where oil prices blow. If barrels skyrocket, the energy version will gain weight without needing to prove anything.