Kharg Island Takeover Feud Reignited-'Game Changer' or Hostage ‘Disaster'

A decades-old idea by President Donald Trump is suddenly back on the table-raising fresh warnings that a move against Iran's key oil hub could trap U.S. troops and escalate a broader conflict.

Trump suggested Thursday the United States could take control of Kharg Island, reigniting a long-running debate over whether seizing the strategic site would shift leverage in negotiations-or trigger a dangerous new phase in U.S.-Iran tensions.

"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, which is working out brilliantly for both Venezuela and the United States of America," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

His comments have exposed a divide among Trump allies and former officials. Critics warn such a move could expose U.S. forces to sustained attack, while supporters argue it would fundamentally alter the balance of power in dealings with Tehran.

Why Kharg Island Matters

The U.S. struck military targets on Kharg Island in March, leaving oil infrastructure intact and largely leaving it at that.

"My preference has always been-take Kharg Island," Trump told Fox News on Thursday. "I don't know that America has the stomach for it."

Trump has floated variations of the idea for decades. In a 1988 interview, he suggested the United States should "go in and take it"-referring to Kharg Island-in response to Iranian aggression.

Kharg Island sits at the center of Iran's oil export system, just northwest of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, serving as a critical hub for shipments moving through the region's most important energy corridor. Its deep-water terminals allow large oil tankers to load directly offshore-an advantage that much of Iran's shallow coastline lacks. Any disruption-whether through strikes, blockade, or occupation-would likely ripple across global energy markets and raise immediate concerns about supply stability.

Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has faced repeated disruptions since the war began. The chokepoint typically handles a significant share of global oil shipments, and restrictions have already tightened supply, driven price volatility, and pushed shipping and insurance costs higher.

Oil markets have already reacted to a fresh round of escalation between the United States and Iran, including tit-for-tat strikes, threats to expand attacks on energy infrastructure, and warnings around the Strait of Hormuz. Prices have swung higher on fears of supply disruption, even as traders weigh how much actual output could be affected. "The latest escalation adds uncertainty to already fragile ceasefire negotiations and risks prolonged supply disruptions that have constrained global crude, fuel, and LNG exports," MUFG analyst Soojin Kim told Reuters on Wednesday.

While Kim was referring to the wider conflict rather than Kharg Island specifically, the hub's central role in Iran's export system makes it a particularly sensitive target for markets already on edge.

Hostage Risk Warning

Some former Trump officials say the risks of such a move could be immediate and severe, particularly if it involved deploying U.S. forces on the ground.

Among them is Joe Kent, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who resigned from the Trump administration in March over the Iran war. He is a former Green Beret with multiple combat deployments and later served as a CIA officer.

"I hope he’s bluffing," Kent said Thursday on the Judging Freedom podcast. "I hope this is just Trump trying to use, you know, more bravado to get them to the negotiating table."

But, Kent added, "If the president intends on carrying out any kind of action on Kharg Island… that's going to make our troops essentially hostages."

Kent pointed to Iran's drone and ballistic missile capabilities, warning that U.S. forces stationed on a confined and highly visible target could face concentrated and sustained attacks.

"The Iranians have proven that they have very durable, very capable drones and ballistic missiles they can employ, and I don’t think we’ve seen them yet concentrate those in a serious way on any of our forces," he said.

The island's proximity to Iran's mainland would leave any U.S. presence exposed to missile and drone strikes launched from nearby territory. Kent argued the danger lies not only in an initial strike, but in what follows, with Iran capable of absorbing pressure and escalating rather than retreating.

"The Iranians are very good at taking pain," he said. "If anything, it’s going to harden their resolve even more."

Kent made a similar argument in March, telling The Washington Post that sending U.S. troops to Kharg Island would be "a disaster," warning it would "essentially be giving Iran a bunch of hostages on an island that they could barrage with drones and missiles."

‘Game Changer' Argument

Others close to Trump frame the proposal as a potential turning point in U.S. strategy.

Senator Lindsey Graham said taking Kharg Island could be "the ultimate game changer," arguing that controlling the hub-especially alongside efforts to keep the Strait of Hormuz open-would restore leverage in negotiations with Iran.

"The combination of continuing to force the Strait open and at the same time controlling Kharg Island's operations by force or blockade would be the most consequential move President Trump could make, regaining the dominance and leverage America needs to end this conflict on favorable terms," Graham wrote on X Thursday.

In March, Graham posted: "Seldom in warfare does an enemy provide you a single target like Kharg Island that could dramatically alter the outcome of the conflict. 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."

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also emphasized the role of military pressure in diplomacy, suggesting force could be used to shape the outcome of negotiations.

"If we need to negotiate with bombs, we'll negotiate with bombs," Hegseth said Wednesday.

The split reflects a broader disagreement over whether escalation strengthens Washington's hand-or risks deepening U.S. involvement in the region.

‘Endless Quagmire'

Trump's comments come amid a broader escalation in rhetoric and military action between Washington and Tehran. U.S. and Iranian forces have exchanged strikes in recent days, raising fears the fragile ceasefire could collapse as tensions build around shipping lanes and regional infrastructure.

Trump's comments on potentially taking Kharg Island come within that context. Iranian officials have warned such moves could deepen the conflict, with the country's Parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, cautioning on X Thursday that "wrong strategies and impulsive decisions" risk creating an "endless quagmire."

Iran has already signaled it would respond to further escalation, vowing to continue military actions as strikes intensify and negotiations remain stalled.

Kharg Island Next Steps

Diplomatic moves in the coming days, along with any additional military signaling, will determine how seriously Iran and U.S. allies interpret Trump's comments.

Whether the proposal evolves into concrete policy or remains a negotiating tactic, its reemergence is already reshaping the debate over how far the United States should go in targeting Iran's oil economy.

2026 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

This story was originally published June 11, 2026 at 2:43 PM.