Trump Says He'd 'Prefer to Take the Oil' in Iran, Eyes Kharg Island

Trump said he would like to "take the oil in Iran" and is considering seizing Kharg Island, which is responsible for more than 90% of Iran's oil exports, in an interview with the Financial Times.

Objective Facts

President Donald Trump stated his "preference would be to take the oil" in Iran and is considering seizing the export hub of Kharg Island, responsible for more than 90% of Iran's oil exports. Trump said "To be honest with you, my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran but some stupid people back in the U.S. say: 'Why are you doing that?' But they're stupid people." He likened the potential move to the US ambitions to control Venezuela's oil industry following the capture of its leader Nicolás Maduro in January. Trump acknowledged that US forces would likely need to remain there for an extended period and that the island handles 90% of Tehran's oil exports. The Trump administration has weighed sending ground forces to the Kharg Island, with one source warning that such an operation would be "very risky."

Left-Leaning Perspective

A former senior U.S. military official called it "a disaster waiting to happen," and Vali Nasr, a leading expert on Iran, stated that "Taking Kharg means destroying it, and Iran will respond with major escalation." Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said that 8,000 troops are not enough to permanently reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and that "I strongly doubt 8,000 troops would be enough to take, hold and secure the territory." Left-leaning outlets and critics frame Trump's statement as revealing an imperialist impulse to seize natural resources. Analysis describes it as "an attempt by the Trump administration to take control of this critical chokehold" over Iran's oil exports and the Strait of Hormuz more broadly. Critics note the operation would "likely be seen by many there and around the world as a US attempt to seize Iranian oil." The left emphasizes the military risk and escalatory consequences that Trump downplays. Experts warn that if Kharg is attacked, the Iranian regime would respond with escalation rather than capitulation, and that a U.S. seizure of Kharg would not force Iran to surrender as Trump suggests because "I don't see them accepting regime change." Democrats, favored to win the House in November, are laying the groundwork for investigations into whether insiders are trading on Trump's market-moving decisions, suggesting corruption concerns.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, influential on Trump's Iran policy, argued that controlling the island "could shorten the war," writing "Seldom in warfare does an enemy provide you a single target like Kharg Island that could dramatically alter the outcome of the conflict." Graham stated "If Iran loses control or the ability to operate its oil infrastructure from Kharg Island, its economy is annihilated. He who controls Kharg Island, controls the destiny of this war." Conservative supporters frame seizing Kharg as a decisive military objective that would economically cripple Iran and accelerate an end to the conflict. American officials argue such an assault would be "an attempt to collapse the regime's economy and break its stranglehold on global markets." The right emphasizes Trump's long-standing position on this issue and compares it to successful operations elsewhere. However, pushback from within Republican ranks reveals division. Pushback came even from members of Graham's own party: Rep. Anna Paulina Luna called the remarks "unacceptable and dark," and Rep. Nancy Mace called out Graham for deploying "someone else's kids to war." Mace argued Graham "has one foreign policy: send someone else's kids to war," noting he was "wrong about Iraq," "wrong about Afghanistan," and "now he's wrong about Iran."

Deep Dive

The statement on March 30 emerges from a month-long military campaign in which the U.S. and Israel have been attacking Iran since late February. The conflict has killed more than 1,340 people to date, including then-Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The war has sent the price of oil surging by more than 50 per cent in a month, with Brent crude rising above $116 a barrel on Monday morning. Iran has largely blocked ships from passing through the Strait of Hormuz since the war began, causing a global crisis as prices of oil, natural gas and fertilizer soar. Trump's comments must be understood against this backdrop: a war ostensibly fought to neutralize Iran's nuclear and military threats, but where Trump openly discusses seizing oil as a personal preference. What each side gets right and what they omit: The right correctly notes that Kharg Island is genuinely critical to Iran's economy and military finances, and that controlling it would be strategically significant. However, they omit serious analysis of Iran's defensive preparations and the likelihood of fierce resistance. The left correctly identifies that military conquest of territory does not automatically translate to political capitulation or even economic control—Iran could destroy the infrastructure or conduct prolonged resistance campaigns. However, some left critics understate Trump's genuine concern about reopening the Strait of Hormuz for global energy flows, conflating this with pure resource greed. Trump's invocation of Venezuela shows he intends indefinite occupation and control of resources, not mere destruction of Iranian capability. What remains unresolved: Trump has not committed to the operation, saying "maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don't," leaving ambiguity about whether this is genuine military planning or negotiating theater. Pakistan is preparing to host U.S.-Iran talks, and Trump claims Iran has agreed to "most of" a 15-point list of demands to end the war. The timeline for any Kharg operation is unclear. Domestically, Trump faces Republican criticism from figures like Nancy Mace and Anna Paulina Luna, complicating his ability to sustain a politically costly ground campaign. Globally, the operation would almost certainly trigger escalation from Houthi forces in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and other Iranian proxies, potentially expanding the conflict beyond current bounds.

OBJ SPEAKING

← Daily BriefAbout

Trump Says He'd 'Prefer to Take the Oil' in Iran, Eyes Kharg Island

Trump said he would like to "take the oil in Iran" and is considering seizing Kharg Island, which is responsible for more than 90% of Iran's oil exports, in an interview with the Financial Times.

Mar 30, 2026
What's Going On

President Donald Trump stated his "preference would be to take the oil" in Iran and is considering seizing the export hub of Kharg Island, responsible for more than 90% of Iran's oil exports. Trump said "To be honest with you, my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran but some stupid people back in the U.S. say: 'Why are you doing that?' But they're stupid people." He likened the potential move to the US ambitions to control Venezuela's oil industry following the capture of its leader Nicolás Maduro in January. Trump acknowledged that US forces would likely need to remain there for an extended period and that the island handles 90% of Tehran's oil exports. The Trump administration has weighed sending ground forces to the Kharg Island, with one source warning that such an operation would be "very risky."

Left says: Critics argue Trump is pursuing imperial-style resource extraction that would escalate the war, risk American lives, and face certain Iranian retaliation without achieving stated objectives. Some experts warn the operation could trigger broader regional conflict and would prove impossible to sustain.
Right says: Republicans like Lindsey Graham argue that controlling the island could shorten the war, noting "Seldom in warfare does an enemy provide you a single target like Kharg Island that could dramatically alter the outcome of the conflict." However, even conservative voices express concern about the military feasibility and scale of casualties.
✓ Common Ground
Some voices on the left and right acknowledge that controlling Kharg Island would significantly damage Iran's economy and reduce its ability to wage war, even if they differ on whether this translates to a decisive military victory.
Both left and right note that seizing Kharg would require sustained U.S. ground troop presence for an extended period, creating logistics and casualty risks that Trump has downplayed.
A number of commentators and military experts across the spectrum recognize that the operation, if attempted, would be risky and could trigger escalatory Iranian responses including drone and missile attacks on American forces.
Several lawmakers, including some Republicans, agree that Trump has not fully thought through the consequences of ground invasion in the region, including responses from Houthi forces, Hezbollah, and broader regional destabilization.
Objective Deep Dive

The statement on March 30 emerges from a month-long military campaign in which the U.S. and Israel have been attacking Iran since late February. The conflict has killed more than 1,340 people to date, including then-Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The war has sent the price of oil surging by more than 50 per cent in a month, with Brent crude rising above $116 a barrel on Monday morning. Iran has largely blocked ships from passing through the Strait of Hormuz since the war began, causing a global crisis as prices of oil, natural gas and fertilizer soar. Trump's comments must be understood against this backdrop: a war ostensibly fought to neutralize Iran's nuclear and military threats, but where Trump openly discusses seizing oil as a personal preference.

What each side gets right and what they omit: The right correctly notes that Kharg Island is genuinely critical to Iran's economy and military finances, and that controlling it would be strategically significant. However, they omit serious analysis of Iran's defensive preparations and the likelihood of fierce resistance. The left correctly identifies that military conquest of territory does not automatically translate to political capitulation or even economic control—Iran could destroy the infrastructure or conduct prolonged resistance campaigns. However, some left critics understate Trump's genuine concern about reopening the Strait of Hormuz for global energy flows, conflating this with pure resource greed. Trump's invocation of Venezuela shows he intends indefinite occupation and control of resources, not mere destruction of Iranian capability.

What remains unresolved: Trump has not committed to the operation, saying "maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don't," leaving ambiguity about whether this is genuine military planning or negotiating theater. Pakistan is preparing to host U.S.-Iran talks, and Trump claims Iran has agreed to "most of" a 15-point list of demands to end the war. The timeline for any Kharg operation is unclear. Domestically, Trump faces Republican criticism from figures like Nancy Mace and Anna Paulina Luna, complicating his ability to sustain a politically costly ground campaign. Globally, the operation would almost certainly trigger escalation from Houthi forces in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and other Iranian proxies, potentially expanding the conflict beyond current bounds.

◈ Tone Comparison

Right-leaning outlets adopt Trump's own language about being "frank" or "honest" regarding military objectives, using terms like "control" and "seize" neutrally. Left-leaning coverage emphasizes the word "take" repetitively, and quotes Trump calling opponents "stupid" to suggest authoritarian contempt. Right outlets downplay risks while left outlets amplify them; left emphasizes Trump's personal preference ("my favorite thing") as concerning, while right frames it as refreshing candor about war aims.

✕ Key Disagreements
Whether seizing Kharg Island would force Iran to accept a ceasefire or surrender
Left: Left-leaning experts argue Iran will respond to any ground invasion with escalation and resistance, not capitulation; Iran would defend the island fiercely and regime change would require far more force than available.
Right: Conservatives like Graham argue that losing control of 90% of oil export capacity would economically cripple the regime and force it to negotiate, functioning as a war-winning objective.
The strategic necessity and wisdom of seizing Kharg Island as a military objective
Left: Critics view it as a reckless imperial overreach that amplifies costs and risks without proportional military or diplomatic benefit; primarily driven by Trump's personal preference for resource control.
Right: Proponents see it as a rare, clearly defined military objective that could decisively alter the war's trajectory by severing Iran's economic lifeline without requiring occupation of mainland Iran.
Trump's framing of critics as "stupid people"
Left: Interpreted as authoritarian dismissal of legitimate military and strategic concerns, reflecting disdain for scrutiny and reasoned debate about operational costs.
Right: Presented as Trump's characteristic direct talk expressing frustration with establishment second-guessing of military operations; confidence in American military capabilities rather than disrespect.
Comparison to Venezuela and the model of resource control
Left: Critics worry Trump is pursuing unilateral resource seizure and imperial extraction as a precedent, destabilizing international law around territorial sovereignty and resource rights.
Right: Supporters view Venezuela precedent as a justified model of controlling adversary resources as leverage in geopolitical conflicts, aligned with U.S. strategic interests.