Adnan Boynukara
Concerns are steadily deepening regarding the unseen consequences of the war initiated by the United States and Israel under the claim that “we have a hunch that Iran will attack us.” In our article titled “The Fate of the Middle East: Foreign Interventions and Israel-Centric Security,” we emphasized that one of the objectives of the ongoing war is to bring Middle Eastern countries together under Israel’s security umbrella, to make Israel’s military and intelligence power decisive on a regional scale, and thereby to increase security cooperation with Arab countries. However, recent history clearly demonstrates that such wars are not limited solely to military objectives. The issue that stands out today is that the war disrupts economic balances and produces new political dependency relationships.
Increasing attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure cannot be seen as ordinary military maneuvers. This is because such targets directly constrict the global energy supply and lead to an increase in oil prices. This outcome is not surprising; rather, it is predictable.The real issue is how this price increase generates a chain reaction within the global economy and upon whom this impact is concentrated. For war is not merely a conflict, but also produces a cycle that strengthens the global debt system and makes weaker economies more dependent.
The Oil Shock: The First Link in the Economic Chain
Rising oil prices are often presented as a technical market reaction. However, this reaction is not an outcome in itself, but the first link in a specific and recurring economic chain. The 1973 Oil Crisis is the clearest example of this. Oil prices quadrupled in a short period, and this increase triggered a period of “stagflation,” in which global economies simultaneously experienced stagnation and high inflation. The rise in energy costs directly affected not only production but also the daily lives of societies, as transportation, heating, and basic consumption items rapidly became more expensive. However, the impact of this instability was not merely economic; it also fundamentally transformed political preferences and economic policy orientations in many countries.
Current developments, although occurring in a different context, are remarkably reactivating a similar system. When energy prices rise, the current account deficits of importing countries widen, demand for foreign exchange increases, and local currencies rapidly depreciate. This is because a significant portion of developing countries’ external debt is denominated in foreign currency. This, in turn, transforms exchange rate shocks directly into debt crises. Although this process may appear as a mere price movement on the surface, it generates systemic fragility at a deeper level. At this point, the key factor that stands out is the U.S. dollar. The fact that energy trade is largely conducted in dollars turns oil shocks directly into currency crises. More expensive oil means a greater need for dollars. This is not merely an economic necessity, but also a structural dependency. Therefore, every surge in oil prices is not only a cost increase—especially for fragile economies—but also the beginning of economic pressure and a debt spiral.
The Debt Trap and the Recurrence of Crisis
In fact, an increase in energy prices alone does not create a disruption. What truly deepens the process is the existing debt structure. A large portion of developing countries have long been borrowing in U.S. dollars. For example, according to IMF data, 60 percent of developing countries’ external debt is denominated in foreign currency. When exchange rates rise, the cost of these debts increases exponentially. Thus, the oil shock quickly evolves from a mere cost increase into a direct debt spiral.
In times of instability, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank step in. In official discourse, these institutions are presented as “stabilizers.” However, in practice, the solutions offered often follow a similar framework: cuts in public spending, the downsizing of the welfare state, and the privatization of strategic sectors. These policies are not technical but directly political. Because the decisions taken during periods of instability redefine not only budget balances but also the economic sovereignty of countries. This crisis does not merely produce destruction; it redistributes power and resources, and this process often works in favor of those who are already powerful.
This mechanism is not new. The oil crises of the 1970s triggered similar processes. The sharp rise in energy prices led to a slowdown in growth, rising unemployment, and increasing social unrest in Western economies. However, more significant was the shift in economic policy following the instability that emerged. As models in which the state intervened in the economy receded, market-based and monetary policies gained momentum. To put it more plainly: Oil crises do not merely create economic contraction. They also lay the groundwork for the establishment of a new economic order.
The developments taking place today reveal a picture that goes beyond a war and an energy issue. This picture appears to be a repetition of a cycle experienced many times in the past. Rising oil prices increase debt pressure, and debt pressure, in turn, narrows economic and political choices. Therefore, the issue is not merely a crisis, but the continuity of an order shaped through the instability it produces—an order that generates similar outcomes each time.
Fragility, Destruction, and Continuity: The Functioning of the System
In the global economy, while some countries weather such fluctuations with limited damage, others are rapidly dragged into multidimensional crises. Economies that are particularly dependent on energy imports, have high levels of U.S. dollar-denominated debt, and possess weak reserves constitute the most fragile link in this process. In such economies, turmoil generally follows a similar trajectory. First, an exchange rate shock occurs; then, debt rollover becomes more difficult, access to financing narrows, and eventually, international intervention mechanisms come into play. However, the most critical dimension of this process lies beyond economic indicators: its social consequences.
The increase in oil prices quickly reflects across all areas of daily life. Electricity and fuel costs rise, food prices increase, and real incomes rapidly erode. While this process impoverishes broad segments of society, the pressure on public finances leads to cuts in health, education, and social services. This picture represents not a sudden collapse, but rather a slow-moving social erosion. This erosion is not merely economic, but directly political. As the cost of living rises, social unrest deepens. Waves of protests, political instability, and governance breakdown become the natural extension of this process. More importantly, economic crises often weaken democratic systems.
The question we must ask here is: Is this picture the product of a deliberate design, or the natural functioning of the system itself? It is not easy to prove the existence of a central plan in this regard. However, this recurring pattern at regular intervals is striking. Economic shocks emerge, the same types of economies collapse, the same institutions intervene, and the cost is once again borne by broad segments of society. This repetition points not to coincidence, but to the structural functioning of the system. Therefore, the issue is not to search for a hidden plan, but to correctly interpret the outcomes of a system that operates openly. This structure does not treat economic crises as accidents; rather, it transforms them into mechanisms that sustain its own functioning.
So why does this structure remain unchanged? There are three fundamental reasons. The first is global power asymmetry. That is, the actors at the center of the financial system directly benefit from the continuation of the existing order. The second is political dependency. Instead of generating alternatives during crises, indebted economies become more deeply integrated into the existing system. The third is the control of public perception. Such analyses are often labeled as “conspiracy theories,” thereby preventing a critical questioning of the current structure.
Ultimately, this triadic structure sustains the system. Moreover, it gains legitimacy each time by being presented as “natural.” However, the emerging picture is clear, and crises are not temporary. On the contrary, they are part of an order that repeats at regular intervals and produces similar outcomes each time. This order transforms, above all, the most fragile.
Illusion or Reality?
The picture that emerges is clear: Wars redefine not only borders, but also economic dependency relationships. What is happening in the Middle East today is generating a global debt pressure through oil prices. While this pressure deepens crises in the most fragile economies, the resulting shocks directly transform political structures. The claim of “inevitability” no longer goes beyond being an excuse. The process unfolding is not a random chain of events, but a mechanism whose outcomes are already known and which has been repeated many times. The same shocks occur, the same countries collapse, and the same social groups bear the cost.
The real issue is that this order does not merely produce problems. It makes crises manageable and reconstructs itself almost like a self-sustaining mechanism. This mechanism deepens dependency a little more each time. It is precisely at this point that two questions come to the fore: The first is not, “Is this process truly inevitable?” The second—and the central question—is, “For whom is this process indispensable?” Because if an order consistently produces the same outcome, this is not coincidence, but the continuity of interests. As long as these interests remain unquestioned, wars will not only produce destruction, but will also continue to serve as the most effective instrument for establishing new dependency relationships.
In short, the issue is not merely today’s crisis. The real issue is the responsibility of the global system and the political will that turns a blind eye to the fact that crises consistently crush the same segments of society. Unless this will and the global system are questioned, every new shock or collapse will fall upon the same faces, the same societies will pay the price, and the same order will continue to reproduce itself.