Futurism⁠93%

Shell Is Profiting Massively Off the War in Iran ⁠79%

By Victor Tangermann⁠91%

7/30/2026, 10:47:51 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 78.9% saturation with 381 hits. Analysis detected 2,091 faulty-reasoning hits from 483 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63% and a BS Rank of ⁠79% (6,185 of 28,772 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.50% of the article peer group.

Don’t worry about the death toll and economic devastation. 
There’s money to be made! 
As the United States launches a “ heavy wave ” of strikes against Iran, a conflict that turned from a limited incursion into an extremely expensive and painfully drawn-out war , some clear winners are starting to emerge — and we’re definitely not talking about the American people. 
As the Wall Street Journal reports , British fossil fuel giant Shell is reaping enormous profits thanks to spiking oil prices triggered by the conflict in Iran. 
Its second-quarter adjusted earnings rose from just shy of $7 billion the previous quarter to a stunning $9.84 billion in the most recent one. 
That’s well above already-lofty expectations from analysts, who predicted earnings of $8.92 billion. 
It’s also double compared to the same period last year , indicating a major surge in profits, in large part due to the violence in Iran. 
Shell isn’t alone in the oil industry. 
Both Chevron and ExxonMobil are expected to report “ monster earnings ,” as CNBC put it, later this week. 
The earnings highlight how major players in the fossil fuels industry are benefiting massively from Donald Trump’s war on Iran, a perverse reality as the number of war and civilian casualties continues to rise . 
Meanwhile, the American people are forced to pick up the tab, paying record prices at the gas pump . 
The Trump administration has extensive ties to the industry and has made countless attempts to thwart the development of renewable energy. 
It has revived US-based oil refineries and has made deep investments in coal — despite the industries’ central roles in worsening a devastating environmental crisis . 
Beyond the oil and gas industry, major banks including JPMorgan are making record profits during the ongoing war thanks to heavy trading volumes as investors rush to dump volatile assets or buy the dip. 
President Trump himself has also massively benefited from the turmoil, making billions while in office . 
Then there’s the Department of Defense’s many contractors, which are also seeing strong growth in sales and profits. 
Three of the biggest defense contractors, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman, reported record sales backlogs boosted by the Iran war earlier this year, from anti-ballistic missile systems to Patriot drones and intercontinental ballistic missiles. 
In short, it doesn’t take much reading between the lines to see who the real winners and losers of Trump’s prolonged war are. 
It’s a conflict lining the pockets of the military industrial complex and fossil fuel companies — the last thing a society suffering the effects of human-induced climate change and reeling from political instability needs. 
More on the war: The Iran War Has Cut Off Supply of a Gas the AI Industry Desperately Needs 
The post Shell Is Profiting Massively Off the War in Iran appeared first on Futurism . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 63.8%Victor Tangermann: 6.2%Futurism: 5.7%Confirmation Bias63.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.0%Futurism: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 21.1%Victor Tangermann: 4.8%Futurism: 5.3%Availability Heuristic21.1%This article: 1.4%Victor Tangermann: 1.1%Futurism: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic1.4%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.8%Futurism: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Victor Tangermann: 2.1%Futurism: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias4.8%This article: 11.8%Victor Tangermann: 9.9%Futurism: 10.2%Framing Effect11.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.4%Futurism: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.4%Futurism: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.4%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.6%Futurism: 1.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Victor Tangermann: 5.1%Futurism: 3.8%Pessimism Bias8.9%This article: 42.0%Victor Tangermann: 20.9%Futurism: 19.8%Negativity Bias42.0%This article: 1.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.7%Futurism: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias1.0%This article: 4.3%Victor Tangermann: 0.7%Futurism: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error4.3%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.7%Futurism: 0.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.1%Futurism: 1.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.4%Futurism: 1.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.2%Victor Tangermann: 6.2%Futurism: 5.4%Appeal to Authority12.2%This article: 7.2%Victor Tangermann: 2.1%Futurism: 2.2%False Dilemma7.2%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.3%Futurism: 1.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.0%Victor Tangermann: 9.2%Futurism: 8.9%Hasty Generalization18.0%This article: 7.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.1%Futurism: 0.9%Red Herring7.0%This article: 3.9%Victor Tangermann: 0.8%Futurism: 0.9%Bandwagon3.9%This article: 5.8%Victor Tangermann: 7.2%Futurism: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion5.8%This article: 4.8%Victor Tangermann: 1.3%Futurism: 1.2%Begging the Question4.8%This article: 41.6%Victor Tangermann: 3.5%Futurism: 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)41.6%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 5.4%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Appeal to Nature5.4%This article: 14.3%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division14.3%This article: 7.7%Victor Tangermann: 2.9%Futurism: 3.6%Anecdotal7.7%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 30.6%Victor Tangermann: 2.6%Futurism: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)30.6%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 3.0%Futurism: 3.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 5.6%Victor Tangermann: 1.8%Futurism: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection5.6%This article: 78.9%Victor Tangermann: 19.3%Futurism: 18.5%Biased Writer Voice78.9%This article: 10.6%Victor Tangermann: 1.9%Futurism: 1.8%Indoctrination10.6%This article: 20.1%Victor Tangermann: 2.7%Futurism: 2.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias20.1%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

483 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers18%attributed speech397writer words
Selected voice

Wall Street Journal

100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words31% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Wall Street Journal: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-91.2 ptsWriter: 91.2%Wall Street Journal: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-24.4 ptsWriter: 24.4%Wall Street Journal: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-12.8 ptsWriter: 12.8%Wall Street Journal: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.