The latest remarks by Donald Trump suggesting that the United States could “take the oil in Iran” and even consider seizing Kharg Island mark a sharp escalation in both tone and intent. At the heart of this rhetoric lies Kharg Island—a strategic nerve centre that handles the vast majority of Iran’s oil exports and, by extension, a crucial artery of global energy supply. What might be framed politically as leverage or deterrence is, in reality, a proposition that risks turning economic warfare into direct territorial confrontation, with consequences far beyond the Gulf.
The logic of “taking the oil” harks back to a bygone era of overt resource-driven intervention, one that modern international law and diplomacy have largely sought to move beyond. Analysts warn that even discussing the seizure of such a critical facility could destabilise already fragile markets, as evidenced by rising oil prices and heightened investor anxiety. More troubling is the military feasibility: while some suggest the island could be captured with limited forces, experts caution that it would expose troops to sustained missile, drone and naval threats, potentially dragging the United States into a prolonged and unpredictable conflict. In this sense, the proposal appears less like a calculated strategy and more like a high-risk gamble with global repercussions.
Ultimately, the rhetoric surrounding Kharg Island underscores a broader shift toward coercive maximalism—where negotiation is paired with threats of overwhelming force. While such posturing may aim to pressure Iran into concessions, it also narrows the space for genuine diplomacy and raises the spectre of a wider regional war. With the Strait of Hormuz and global oil flows already under strain, the world can ill afford policies that treat strategic infrastructure as spoils of conflict rather than shared economic lifelines. The challenge for global leaders now is not merely to respond, but to prevent a dangerous idea from becoming an irreversible reality.