Scenario for Controlling Kharg Island: Will Trump Fulfill His Old Threat Against Iran's 'Crown Jewel'?

The recent American bombing of Iran's Kharg Island has revived an old threat made by President Donald Trump nearly four decades ago, with the island emerging as a strategic target that could determine the course of the current confrontation. Control of this coral island is seen as the most realistic option to undermine the Iranian regime's financial resources, despite the risks of sliding into a direct ground confrontation.

Kharg Island holds immense importance as the main engine of the Iranian economy, with approximately 90% of the country's oil exports flowing through it to global markets. The island is located 25 kilometers off the Iranian coast, making it a vital pivot point for controlling Tehran's financial revenues and its ability to fund its military institutions and allies abroad.

Historically, Trump stated in an interview with 'The Guardian' in 1988 that he would strike Kharg Island and assert control over it if he were the decision-maker in Washington at the time. It appears that the American president has begun to partially fulfill this promise, having recently announced the destruction of military targets on the island, describing it as the 'crown jewel' that must be dealt with decisively.

Sources reported that the recent attacks focused precisely on air defenses, the 'Joshan' naval base, and airport facilities, while avoiding targeting oil infrastructure at this stage. Trump clarified via his 'Truth Social' platform that not destroying oil facilities was an optional decision, but he hinted at doing so if Tehran threatened the safety of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

For its part, Tehran increased its oil exports from the island to record levels before the attack, with banking memos revealing the shipment of more than three million barrels per day. These moves reflect the Iranian regime's sensing of imminent danger and its attempt to secure as much cash as possible before the vital port is disrupted by ongoing military operations.

Iran's reaction was sharp, with the military leadership vowing to turn American oil interests in the region to ashes if oil facilities in Kharg were touched. The spokesman for the 'Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters' affirmed that any aggression against energy infrastructure would be met with a devastating response that would extend beyond Iran's geographical borders to include Washington's allies in the region.

Analysts believe that ground control of the island could be an alternative to destroying it, with the aim of financially suffocating the regime without causing an environmental catastrophe or a crazy jump in global oil prices. However, this option faces opposition within American decision-making circles that fear a repeat of 'quagmire' scenarios in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially given the island's proximity to sensitive nuclear facilities.

Statements from the Trump administration regarding sending ground troops are contradictory, with the president describing the matter on occasions as a 'waste of time' given the dilapidated state of the Iranian navy. But he later affirmed in other statements his readiness to deploy soldiers 'if necessary' to monitor uranium stockpiles or secure strategic points, reflecting a state of strategic hesitation regarding ground intervention.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth tried to distinguish between the current war and previous wars, noting that Washington does not seek to build democracy in Iran or engage in 'stupid rules of engagement'. Hegseth affirmed that the goal is to achieve specific military objectives related to American national security and protecting international navigation, far from costly nation-building projects.

Economic reports indicate that the fall of Kharg Island into the hands of American forces would immediately lead to a halving of Iranian oil production and a complete halt to exports. This scenario could push Tehran to carry out its threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, which would ignite an unprecedented global energy crisis and put the international economy on the brink of collapse.

Kharg Island, originally built by the American company 'Amoco' decades ago, remains the fatal weakness in the Iranian body and the most tempting target for military planners in Washington. While air strikes continue, the question remains whether these operations are a prelude to a limited naval invasion that would seize Iran's lifeline.

Trump has set four main objectives for his military campaign, including destroying missile and nuclear capabilities and preventing the funding of 'terrorist armies' in the region. Observers believe that achieving these goals may not require a full occupation of Iran, but rather control of vital economic and military hubs such as Kharg Island to impose surrender terms on Tehran.

Given the cohesion of the Iranian leadership hierarchy after the selection of a new supreme leader, the American bet on a rapid internal collapse of the regime may be delayed, increasing the likelihood of military escalation. 'Kharg' remains the trump card that Trump is waving to pressure the Iranian leadership to back down from its rigid positions and enter into negotiations under fire.

In conclusion, the coming days will reveal the seriousness of American threats to move to the ground phase on Kharg Island, amid international anticipation of the repercussions on Gulf security. The transformation of the island from an oil hub to a direct confrontation arena places the entire region at a historical turning point that could redraw the map of influence in the Middle East for many years to come.

I will reconsider destroying the oil infrastructure if Iran does anything that obstructs the safety of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.