ON
← Back to feed
Oil companies are expected to reap big profits because of US-Iran conflict
United States🏛️ PoliticsCenter7 days ago

Oil companies are expected to reap big profits because of US-Iran conflict

Analysts predict major oil companies will see significant profits due to the ongoing US-Iran conflict, which disrupted oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. This led to a surge in global oil prices, with Brent crude rising from $70 to over $100 per barrel, peaking at $126. As a result, companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron are expected to benefit from higher sales prices. However, the increased costs have affected consumers globally, causing fuel shortages and prompting measures like fuel rationing in some countries. Six European oil firms reported $22 billion in first-quarter profits, a 43% increase compared to the previous year. Critics argue that these profits contrast sharply with the hardships faced by many people worldwide, including energy shortages and food insecurity. While oil prices are influenced by market forces, Democratic lawmakers have proposed taxing high profits from oil companies starting in 2026 to redistribute funds to consumers.

The United States has paused its attacks on Iran for a second consecutive day, and Tehran has also suspended its military operations, marking a temporary halt in hostilities that have escalated over nearly two weeks. This development comes amid ongoing diplomatic efforts aimed at reviving an interim ceasefire agreement, which has been strained by recent clashes involving both nations. The reasons behind the U.S. decision to pause its strikes remain unclear, though officials have suggested that discussions are continuing at multiple levels. The conflict began following Iran's attacks on vessels attempting to navigate the Strait of Hormuz, prompting a retaliatory response from the United States. The situation intensified as both sides exchanged blows, with the U.S. targeting Iranian coastal areas and infrastructure. The Pentagon has yet to provide an immediate explanation for the pause in attacks, leaving speculation about the underlying motivations. Mike Waltz, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stated that President Donald Trump is allowing space for negotiations, emphasizing that both Oman and Iran have been actively engaged in talks. These discussions have spanned various levels, from high-level diplomatic meetings to technical negotiations, indicating a multifaceted approach to resolving the tensions. Despite Waltz dismissing concerns about the depletion of U.S. interceptor stocks, experts remain skeptical about the sustainability of prolonged military engagements. In response to the U.S. pause, Iran's army spokesperson confirmed that the country has also ceased its attacks, citing the need for de-escalation. Recent actions by Iran included counterattacks against regions hosting U.S. military forces, resulting in casualties in Jordan. A regional official described the pause as a positive signal, suggesting that both nations are seeking a resolution to the ongoing conflict. The official noted that the focus of current negotiations revolves around allowing Iran to manage vessel traffic through the Strait of Hormuz with reduced restrictions on ships. The interim ceasefire agreement, signed in mid-June, has entered its second half, yet key issues such as Iran's nuclear program remain unresolved. Mediators continue to work towards a compromise, aiming to address the concerns of both parties. Meanwhile, concerns persist regarding the safety of shipping routes, particularly the Bab al-Mandeb strait in the Red Sea, where Iranian-backed Houthi rebels have threatened a blockade affecting Saudi shipping. Iran continues to engage with Oman on managing the safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, with progress reported in these discussions. However, Iran maintains that the interim deal permits it to oversee shipping activities in the area, opposing U.S. initiatives to establish alternative routes near Oman. The U.S. military has reiterated its commitment to vigilance, highlighting its readiness to protect interests in the region. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to visit the United States to meet with President Trump, signaling further involvement in the regional dynamics. Their meeting follows a series of developments that have shaped the geopolitical landscape, including the impact of the conflict on global energy markets and economic stability. As the situation evolves, the outcomes of these diplomatic efforts will be closely watched, influencing future interactions and strategies among the involved parties.

Go to the primary sources (1)

The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.

2 reports

Christian Science Monitor logoChristian Science MonitorParty-alignedCenterFactual 90Objective 7512 days ago
US pauses attacks on Iran for a second day and Tehran does, too

The United States and Iran have both paused attacks for a second consecutive day, marking a temporary halt in hostilities amid ongoing diplomatic efforts to revive an interim ceasefire agreement. The pause comes after a nearly two-week escalation involving targeted strikes on Iranian coastal areas and infrastructure, triggered by Iran's attacks on ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz. While the reasons for the U.S. pause remain unclear, officials suggest that President Donald Trump is allowing space for negotiations. Iran has also suspended attacks, according to its military spokesperson. Mediation efforts continue, focusing on resolving disputes around Iran's nuclear program and ensuring safer passage for vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. Concerns persist regarding the security of critical waterways like the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, where Iranian-backed Houthi rebels have threatened blockades.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the situation, citing statements from both U.S. and Iranian officials, as well as a regional mediator. It avoids overtly biased language and provides context about the ongoing conflict and diplomatic efforts without favoring either side.

Why factuality (90): The article accurately reports Trump's claim that a deal is 'imminent' and his decision to pause attacks based on pressure from allies. It aligns with other sources about the potential for negotiations on Hormuz and denuclearization.

Why objectivity (75): The article leans toward Trump's perspective, emphasizing his statements and framing the situation as a potential breakthrough. It gives less attention to Iran's position or the complexities of the negotiations.

ABC News (US) logoABC News (US)IndependentCenterFactual 70Objective 607 days ago
Oil companies are expected to reap big profits because of US-Iran conflict

Analysts predict major oil companies will see significant profits due to the ongoing US-Iran conflict, which disrupted oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. This led to a surge in global oil prices, with Brent crude rising from $70 to over $100 per barrel, peaking at $126. As a result, companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron are expected to benefit from higher sales prices. However, the increased costs have affected consumers globally, causing fuel shortages and prompting measures like fuel rationing in some countries. Six European oil firms reported $22 billion in first-quarter profits, a 43% increase compared to the previous year. Critics argue that these profits contrast sharply with the hardships faced by many people worldwide, including energy shortages and food insecurity. While oil prices are influenced by market forces, Democratic lawmakers have proposed taxing high profits from oil companies starting in 2026 to redistribute funds to consumers.

Bias read (Center): While the article highlights the financial gains of oil companies and mentions legislative proposals to address these profits, it does not overtly favor either side. It presents both the economic impacts and the political responses without clear ideological slant. The framing remains balanced, with

Why factuality (70): The article accurately reports the U.S. launching new attacks against Iran, citing the U.S. Central Command. However, it does not provide enough context about the reasons behind the attacks or the broader implications of the conflict.

Why objectivity (60): The article presents the situation from a U.S. military perspective, focusing on the attacks without providing a balanced view of the conflict or its effects on other parties involved.

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories