Iran’s Leader Calls for Muslim Unity After Six Months of War

Six months after the United States and Israel launched their war against Iran, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has used a written message to urge Muslim countries — particularly Gulf states — to unite against what he described as their “real enemy.” The message comes at a moment when Iran remains locked in a prolonged confrontation, the Strait of Hormuz is disrupting global energy flows and the economic consequences of the war are being distributed very unevenly, with households and travelers absorbing higher costs while some investors and defense-related businesses have benefited. (Reuters)

Khamenei's August 30 message was issued for Islamic Unity Week and marked his first major public statement of this kind since he was injured in the February 28 U.S.-Israeli strikes that killed his father, former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He called for greater cooperation and mutual defense among Muslim states and questioned whether the suffering of Palestinians could have been reduced if Muslim countries had acted with greater unity.

The significance goes beyond religious rhetoric. Khamenei directly addressed Gulf rulers at a time when Iran's relationship with Arab governments has become one of the most delicate parts of the war. Tehran has also struck U.S. facilities and infrastructure in Gulf states during the conflict, while Gulf governments have generally sought to avoid becoming direct participants in a wider confrontation.

At the same time, the six-month mark offers a revealing picture of the war's economic effects. The global economy has not entered the sweeping recession some early forecasts anticipated, according to a new Associated Press assessment, but the costs have fallen unevenly across countries, industries and income groups. Some financial markets recovered strongly after their initial shock, while oil-dependent consumers, airlines and poorer food-importing countries have faced a more difficult environment. (Associated Press)

Khamenei's message is aimed at the Gulf as much as Iran's domestic audience

The wording of Khamenei's message reflects the strategic tension between Iran and the Arab monarchies surrounding it.

Reuters reported that he called on Muslim states, especially Gulf countries, to identify and confront what he called their “real enemy” and warned that divisions among Muslims serve the interests of adversaries. He also challenged Gulf rulers over whether outside powers would have dared to covet their territory and possessions if the region had been politically united. (Reuters )

That message should be read against decades of mistrust.

Since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, Gulf Arab monarchies have often viewed Iran's revolutionary ideology and regional influence as a threat to their political systems. At the same time, the Gulf states have economic and security interests that make them highly dependent on stable relationships with the United States and on reliable access to international markets.

The war has sharpened that contradiction. Gulf governments have an interest in limiting further Iranian attacks and maintaining U.S. security guarantees, but they also have an equally strong interest in preventing the conflict from turning the Persian Gulf into a long-term battlefield.

Khamenei's appeal therefore offers a message of regional solidarity from Tehran, but there is little indication that Gulf governments share Iran's broader strategic interpretation of the conflict.

The timing is significant for Iran's own leadership

Khamenei's statement also matters because of his unusual public profile since becoming supreme leader.

He has not been seen publicly since sustaining injuries in the opening U.S.-Israeli strikes, according to Reuters. His leadership has instead been communicated through written messages and through the institutions operating around him.

That makes each major statement more politically significant.

His latest message combines regional appeals with a domestic concern about social cohesion. Reuters reported that he had also urged Iranian authorities to avoid statements that weaken public morale and to prevent political divisions from damaging national unity.

For an Iranian government already dealing with inflation, sanctions, disrupted trade and wartime pressure, maintaining internal cohesion is a strategic issue. A prolonged conflict can create disagreements over military strategy, negotiations, economic policy and the cost of confrontation.

Khamenei's emphasis on unity suggests that the leadership is trying to prevent those pressures from becoming politically destabilizing.

It also shows that Tehran's strategy is not limited to battlefield resistance. Political messaging, economic adaptation and regional diplomacy are being used alongside military power.

Six months of war have produced a remarkably uneven economic result

The wider economic picture is more complicated than a simple claim that the war has either “damaged” or “benefited” the global economy.

The Associated Press reported that the dramatic recession scenarios feared at the start of the conflict have not materialized. After heavy losses in the first phase of the war, major U.S. stock indexes recovered strongly. The Dow gained nearly 19% from its late-March low, the S&P 500 almost 22% and the Nasdaq about 27%, according to the AP assessment. (Associated Press)

That recovery does not mean the conflict has been economically harmless.

Oil prices rose sharply after the war began. Brent crude moved from a prewar level of around $72 a barrel to nearly $120 at its peak, according to AP, and remained roughly 20% above the prewar level at the time of its six-month assessment. Higher energy prices have fed into transportation and other household costs.

The effects have been particularly visible in aviation.

The International Air Transport Association expects jet fuel costs in 2026 to average about 70% above 2025 levels, according to AP. Airlines have responded with higher fares, new fees, fuel surcharges and reduced service on some routes.

That creates a stark contrast with the rebound in financial markets. Investors with diversified portfolios may have recovered from the initial shock, while ordinary consumers have had to absorb more expensive travel and fuel.

The poorest economies face a different kind of pressure

The war's impact is even more severe in countries exposed to higher food and fertilizer prices.

The Gulf region is a major fertilizer-producing center as well as a major oil-producing region. AP reported that fertilizer prices peaked about 44% above their prewar level in April, according to the World Bank's price index. Higher transportation costs and fertilizer prices create a risk that farmers reduce applications, potentially affecting future harvests.

This is one reason the economic effects of the Iran war cannot be measured only through stock indexes or crude prices.

A household that spends a larger share of its income on food and transportation experiences an energy shock differently from a wealthy investor. A developing country that imports fertilizer can face a much more serious long-term problem than a large industrial economy able to absorb a temporary rise in costs.

The United Nations World Food Programme has warned that disruptions to fertilizer exports and more expensive transportation can aggravate food insecurity in Asia and Africa.

The six-month economic picture is therefore uneven by design: gains in one part of the economy can coexist with serious losses elsewhere.

Why the Strait of Hormuz remains central

Much of that imbalance is rooted in the Strait of Hormuz.

The waterway is a critical route for Gulf oil and LNG exports, and the war has sharply reduced tanker traffic. The result is not simply an Iranian problem. Restrictions around Hormuz affect producers, shipping companies, refiners, airlines, manufacturers and consumers around the world. (The Guardian)

For Gulf governments, the stakes are particularly high. Their economies depend on exporting energy while maintaining access to global markets. A prolonged disruption threatens both objectives.

That creates a difficult strategic environment for the Gulf monarchies Khamenei addressed

They may have strong reasons to oppose further escalation, but they also have powerful incentives to preserve their security partnerships with Washington and their commercial ties with global markets.

Iran's call for Muslim unity does not erase those interests.

The war has also benefited parts of the defense economy

One of the most politically sensitive findings in the AP's six-month economic assessment concerns the businesses connected to President Donald Trump's family.

AP reported that the Trump family's businesses and investments have been among the beneficiaries of the war. It identified military contractor Powerus, which Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. are preparing to take public, as receiving an Air Force contract worth as much as $90 million to supply interceptors for Iranian drones.

The report also said 1789 Capital Management, a private-equity firm that Don Jr. joined after his father's reelection, holds stakes in defense-related companies that have benefited from the conflict.

One of those companies, Anduril, received U.S. approval for up to $2 billion in sales of drone interceptors to Kuwait, according to AP. The report also identified contracts involving Firehawk Defense and other defense-related businesses.

These links are significant because they show how military expenditure can produce private-sector winners even while the war imposes costs on taxpayers and civilians.

But the evidence needs to be described carefully.

AP reported financial connections and commercial benefits. That is not the same as establishing that the Trump family caused specific contracts to be awarded or that the war was pursued for private financial reasons.

A spokeswoman for 1789 Capital told AP that Don Jr. was not involved in the investment decisions and denied any improper connection.

Trump's own investments have also benefited from some war-related sectors

The AP report said President Trump himself has benefited financially from market movements connected to the conflict.

His investment portfolio, managed by outside professionals, bought shares in military suppliers including Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman, according to the report. AP also said Democrats released a report estimating that Trump's oil and gas holdings had risen by as much as $15.5 million.

The White House rejected the suggestion of a conflict of interest.

A White House spokeswoman told AP that there were no conflicts of interest and that Trump acts in the best interests of the American public.

That response is important because it highlights the political distinction between an investment benefiting from a policy environment and evidence that the policy was adopted to enrich an individual.

The first can be documented through financial records and market performance. The second would require evidence of intent that the publicly available reporting does not establish.

That distinction should remain clear in any serious account of the Trump family's financial exposure.

The crypto business adds another layer

The Trump family's financial interests extend beyond conventional investments and defense-related businesses.

Reuters has separately reported that Trump-linked cryptocurrency ventures have generated substantial wealth for the family while creating losses or risks for some investors. Reuters estimated that the family's crypto activities had added at least $2.3 billion to the family fortune by June 2026.

The crypto story is not identical to the defense-investment story, and it would be misleading to attribute all of those gains to the Iran war.

However, it adds context to the broader question of how the Trump family's private business interests intersect with the political environment surrounding the presidency.

That intersection has drawn increasing scrutiny from lawmakers and ethics critics, particularly when companies benefiting from government policies have connections to businesses associated with the president's family.

Again, the existence of a financial benefit is not itself proof of unlawful conduct. The relevant question is whether government decisions were influenced by private interests and whether adequate safeguards exist to prevent conflicts.

The war's economic winners are not necessarily its political winners

The six-month economic assessment also highlights an important distinction between financial gains and political success.

AP reported that Trump's family businesses have benefited from defense-related contracts and that the president's investment portfolio has benefited from shares in military suppliers. But the same report noted that Trump's political position is a different matter. The war has been unpopular and could become an electoral liability as U.S. voters approach the midterm elections.

That distinction is especially important because a war can create profitable activity without producing a favorable political outcome for the government responsible for it.

Defense contractors may benefit from higher demand. Energy producers may benefit from higher prices. Investors may benefit from market recoveries.

Meanwhile, voters may blame political leaders for higher fuel costs, military casualties or a conflict that appears prolonged without a clear resolution.

Economic winners and political winners therefore cannot automatically be treated as the same group.

Iran has also become more isolated economically

While some U.S.-linked businesses have benefited from war-related spending, Iran faces a very different economic reality.

Reuters has described the Iranian economy as heavily damaged by sanctions, disrupted oil exports and restrictions on international trade. Annual inflation has risen sharply, while the Iranian government says foreign trade has fallen substantially. "Reuters"

Washington has continued expanding secondary sanctions, targeting not only Iranian entities but also foreign intermediaries involved in oil sales, financial transfers and sanctions evasion.

That creates pressure on the networks Iran relies on to keep its economy functioning.

China remains particularly important as a destination for Iranian oil, but even Chinese buyers and intermediaries must consider the risk of becoming targets of U.S. sanctions.

Iran's strategy of reducing dollar dependence and building alternative trade channels can therefore mitigate some pressure but cannot completely replace access to the broader international financial system.

What Khamenei's regional message could mean for the Gulf

Khamenei's appeal for Muslim unity could be interpreted in several ways.

At the most basic level, it is an attempt to frame the war as a conflict in which Iran and other Muslim countries share a common strategic interest. That message is particularly relevant to the Gulf, where Iran wants to prevent neighboring governments from fully aligning themselves with Washington's military strategy.

But Gulf governments are likely to calculate their policies primarily around national security and economic interests.

They have strong incentives to prevent Iranian attacks on their territory, maintain energy exports and preserve international shipping. They also have an interest in reducing the chance that the war expands into a permanent regional conflict.

That means Tehran faces a difficult diplomatic task. Calling for Islamic unity may resonate politically with some audiences, but translating that rhetoric into practical alignment with Gulf governments is considerably harder.

The Gulf states are not simply choosing between Iran and the United States. They are trying to preserve their own security and economic interests in an increasingly unstable region.

A broader lesson from six months of war

The latest developments reveal how different the war looks depending on where it is viewed.

For Iran's leadership, the conflict is a struggle over sovereignty, strategic autonomy, sanctions and regional influence.

For Gulf governments, it is a security and economic problem centered on shipping and energy infrastructure.

For consumers, it is reflected in fuel, travel and food costs.

For investors, it has become a complicated mixture of geopolitical risk, market volatility and sector-specific opportunity.

And for the Trump family, the economic picture includes identifiable financial benefits from defense-related companies, investments and other businesses — alongside a separate political controversy over whether such gains create unacceptable conflicts of interest.

Those realities can exist simultaneously without one cancelling out another.

What to watch as the conflict moves beyond six months

The most important indicator will be whether the war remains a costly stalemate or begins to produce a diplomatic settlement.

For Iran, the key issues include the condition of the economy, the ability to maintain oil exports, the future of Hormuz and whether regional relationships can be preserved despite the conflict.

For Gulf states, the priority is maintaining secure energy exports and avoiding a broader confrontation that could threaten infrastructure and investment.

For Washington, the question is whether sanctions and military pressure can achieve political objectives without creating a larger international economic shock.

And for the Trump family, scrutiny is likely to continue around the relationship between private financial interests and government policy, regardless of whether individual transactions or contracts are lawful.

The six-month milestone therefore does not provide a simple verdict on who is winning.

It instead exposes a fragmented outcome. Iran remains under severe military and economic pressure but has not been forced out of the regional contest. Gulf states face greater security risks while trying to protect their economies. Global investors have, in many cases, recovered faster than consumers. And some businesses tied to defense and energy have gained from conditions that have imposed enormous costs elsewhere.

Mojtaba Khamenei's call for Muslim unity fits into that broader struggle. It is an effort to transform Iran's wartime position into a regional political message, particularly toward Gulf governments. Whether that appeal can overcome their separate security and economic calculations is far less certain.

The war's next phase will therefore be determined not only by missiles, sanctions or oil shipments, but by whether the competing incentives created by six months of conflict begin pushing governments toward compromise. Until then, the defining feature of the crisis is not a clear victory for one side, but a widening gap between those paying the costs and those positioned to benefit from the economic consequences

Search This Blog

The American Times News | Economy, Geopolitics, Calculators