The TOI correspondent from Washington: Donald Trump built a political movement around a simple proposition: America had spent too much blood and money policing the world. The Iraq War was a “big, fat mistake.” Afghanistan was an endless quagmire. Nation-building, he argued, had drained American power.Now, as a second term President, Trump is openly threatening one of the most audacious military moves contemplated by any modern American administration due to his frustration with Tehran not agreeing to a deal on his terms: seizing Iran’s Kharg Island, the tiny but immensely strategic Persian Gulf outpost through which roughly 90 percent of Tehran’s crude exports flow.“The United States will be hitting Iran… VERY HARD TONIGHT,” Trump declared in a social media post Thursday. “At some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets, much like we have with Venezuela.”
.
The rhetoric marked a stunning evolution in Trump’s worldview — from ceasefire to “seize and fire,” from “America First” restraint to publicly discussing capturing another country’s critical economic infrastructure.Speaking later on Fox News, Trump made clear that Kharg Island has long fascinated him as both a strategic and commercial prize. “My preference has always been to take Kharg Island,” he said, noting, after momentary reflection he is not famous for, “I don’t know that America has the stomach for it, to be honest with it.” And with money on his mind as always, he added, “You’d make a fortune.”The Kharg island itself is small – roughly one-third the size of Manhattan – but its importance is enormous. Situated about 20 miles off Iran’s coast, it serves as the beating heart of Iran’s energy sector. Analysts estimate that about nine out of every ten barrels of Iranian crude exported to world markets pass through its terminals.Trump’s proposal has found enthusiastic supporters among hawkish Republicans. Senator Lindsey Graham, of whom it is said he has never seen a war he hasn’t liked, argued that controlling Kharg could fundamentally alter the balance of power. “If there is no deal soon, Mr. President, you are right to put on the table the taking of Kharg Island,” Graham wrote, describing the idea as “the ultimate game changer,” and arguing that combining control of Kharg with freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz would restore American leverage.Others were even more blunt in recommending US overlordship. Retired General Keith Kellogg, a former Trump administration official, suggested that the US could simply tell the world: “You won’t get any oil. We control the oil. We’re the oil barons.”Yet even some figures aligned with Trump’s broader foreign policy instincts are sounding alarms. Former Trump administration official Joe Kent warned that any occupation could rapidly become a military nightmare, making US troops essentially hostages because Iran retains some capabilities despite repeated U.S. strikes. Democrats, expectedly, were appalled at the idea. “Only Congress can declare war. Invading Iran’s Kharg Island would be brazenly unconstitutional. American troops would die during the invasion. And then every day Iran would try to kill more American troops on Kharg Island.” California lawmaker Ted Lieu said.Military analysts note that taking the island may be easier than holding it. Kharg lies within easy striking distance of the Iranian mainland. Even if Tehran’s conventional military capabilities have been degraded, Iran is believed to retain drone and missile arsenals capable of targeting a fixed American position. The island’s proximity to Iran means occupying forces could also face constant harassment from Shahed drones, missile attacks and sabotage operations.Experts have warned that a successful amphibious assault could quickly evolve into an open-ended and costly deployment. The logistical challenges will also be daunting. Reinforcements would need to traverse hundreds of miles of contested waters or depend on regional partners whose enthusiasm for hosting a wider war remains uncertain.Trump’s threats also raise fundamental questions about his broader strategy. One possibility is that the rhetoric represents coercive diplomacy — an attempt to frighten Iranian leaders into making concessions they have thus far resisted. Yet such brinkmanship carries risks of its own. Analysts warn that threats of territorial seizure can harden positions in Tehran, empower hardliners and narrow the already limited space for negotiations. Iranian leaders, having framed the conflict as resistance against foreign domination, may find it politically impossible to compromise under explicit threats of occupation.Alternatively, Trump may genuinely be considering escalation. If so, it would represent the most dramatic departure yet from the anti-interventionist impulses that helped propel him to power. The president who once mocked America’s “endless wars” would be contemplating precisely the kind of boots-on-the-ground operation he long condemned. And the consequences would extend well beyond Washington and Tehran, into New Delhi, Tokyo, Beijing, Seoul and beyond.
