Kharg vs Hormuz: Will Trump’s new gamble set the Gulf on fire?
The developments underline a new strategic competition. As the United States seeks to deter Iran from strangling the Strait of Hormuz and threatening global oil flows, Tehran appears to be using the disruption as both an economic weapon and a geopolitical bargaining chip with countries outside Washington’s wartime coalition.
Also Read| Kharg Island: US bombs Iran’s ‘crown jewel’, threatens Islamic Republic’s main oil infrastructure
Kharg movement
The latest tension began with a major US attack on Kharg Island, one of Iran’s most critical strategic assets. Trump announced that US forces carried out a major bombing raid targeting military facilities on the island, but deliberately avoided hitting oil facilities. Stating that US forces “completely destroyed every MILITARY target” on the island but chose not to destroy the oil infrastructure, Trump warned that the restrictions may end if Iran continues to interfere with shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Target selection is important. Kharg Island is Iran’s main oil export hub, handling about 90 percent of the country’s crude oil shipments and serving as a loading point for tankers bound for global markets.
The island is located just north of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply normally passes. Any military action here directly intersects with the broader struggle for control of energy flows in the Gulf. The strike took place at a time when Iran was heavily intervening in maritime traffic in the strait, which was already slowing tanker movements and shaking global energy markets.
Kharg Island is not just a military target. It is the economic heart of Iran’s oil industry and a critical node in the global energy system. Reuters reported that Iran was exporting about 1.7 million barrels of oil per day before the latest surge, with most of it shipped from Kharg Island. Because of its deepwater facilities, the island allows major crude carriers to load Iranian oil before it travels through the Strait of Hormuz to international buyers. This makes Kharg both a vital economic asset for Iran and a strategic pressure point for Washington.
Al Jazeera reported that military analysts believe the United States may suspect Iran of using the island as a staging area for attacks on ships in the strait. “The Americans are probably targeting it because they think the Iranians are attacking ships they don’t want to pass through the strait,” one analyst told the network. This dual role explains the US strategy: to weaken Iran’s military footprint in Kharg without disrupting its oil infrastructure.
Trump’s message suggests that the attack was intended as a warning rather than an attempt to directly destroy Iran’s energy exports. In his statement announcing the attack, the US president said he refrained from attacking oil facilities “out of decency”, but warned that these facilities could be targeted if Iran interfered with the “Free and Safe Passage of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz”.
Al Jazeera analysis interprets this move as a deliberate signal. By attacking military facilities in Kharg while protecting oil infrastructure, Washington is demonstrating that it can weaken Iran’s ability to attack shipping while keeping the most destructive economic option in reserve. The oil infrastructure itself is the real leverage. If Iran is destroyed, it would lose the main terminal from which it exports crude oil, a blow that could wipe out millions of barrels per day from the global market and seriously damage Tehran’s revenue stream.
Iran warned that such a move would cross a red line. It has threatened to retaliate by hitting energy infrastructure in the Gulf region if its oil facilities are targeted. If the United States tries to seize Kharg or destroy its oil infrastructure, it could become a life-or-death moment for Iran that could force the Gulf to be set on fire.
Also Read| Trump says Iran is completely defeated and wants a deal, but not one he will accept
Are the boots on the ground?
At the same time, the United States appears to be planning another major provocation, preparing for a possible expansion of the conflict. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Pentagon has approved the deployment of additional Marines and warships to the Middle East as Iran’s attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz intensify. U.S. officials told the newspaper that the Japan-based USS Tripoli and its Marines were advancing toward the area as part of an amphibious ready group.
Such a force usually includes several warships and approximately 5,000 Marines and sailors. It can be used for rapid military operations, from evacuations to amphibious assaults. CNN also reported that a Marine Expeditionary Unit of approximately 2,500 Marines and sailors was also deployed, but officials have not publicly disclosed that unit’s exact mission.
The nature of a reconnaissance unit makes its potential uses clear. It is designed for operations on foreign soil, raising the possibility that if the conflict escalates further the United States may eventually attempt to seize strategic areas such as Kharg Island. The deployment signals that Washington is preparing options that go beyond air strikes.
Late Friday, Trump told reporters his military campaign would continue “as long as necessary.” When asked by journalists how long the war would last, he said: “I can’t tell you that. I mean, I have my own idea.” He added: “I won’t give you the time but we are way ahead of schedule.” The comment may suggest that the United States may be planning further military operations that could expand or prolong the conflict. The deployment of amphibious expeditionary forces points to such a possibility. Trump had previously not ruled out the possibility of boots on the ground, despite the risk of heavy casualties.
Iran’s new Hormuz diplomacy
While the US is escalating tensions militarily, Iran seems to be following a different strategy, such as turning control of the Strait of Hormuz into diplomatic leverage. Many countries have begun reaching out directly to Tehran to negotiate the safe passage of their ships through the strait, rather than relying on Washington to guarantee security.
“Major states are now reaching out to the Iranians to find a way to negotiate their own safe passage,” Trita Parsi, co-founder of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Government, told Al Jazeera. “India has already reached an agreement. The Europeans (France and Italy) have also done this. They went to Iran to do this. Not to Washington.” Parsi said the trend reflects “very clearly who is in control of the situation there.”
Another report from CNN stated that Iranian officials are considering allowing certain oil tankers to pass through the strait if the cargo is traded in Chinese yuan instead of US dollars. Such a move would be significant because global oil is predominantly priced and traded in dollars. A yuan-based arrangement would not only bypass US sanctions but could also draw major energy consumers such as China and India into separate deals with Tehran.
Iran’s moves suggest an attempt to reshape the geopolitical stakes of the conflict. By selectively allowing safe passage for some countries while restricting others, Iran could split the international response to the crisis. Countries heavily dependent on Gulf energy supplies may prioritize keeping trade routes open, even if it means negotiating directly with Iran, rather than supporting U.S. military pressure. In fact, Hormuz is becoming both an economic transit point and a diplomatic bargaining tool.
If successful, such a strategy could weaken the cohesion of any US-led coalition against Iran and also increase global oil prices. The resulting economic pressure on major importing countries may push them to compromise with Iran and reduce tensions in the Gulf.
There is a dangerous climb
Recent developments show that the Iran war has entered a phase where both sides are increasing the risks in different ways. The United States is expanding its military footprint and threatening Iran’s most valuable energy asset. Iran, meanwhile, is trying a strategy that combines shipping disruption with selective diplomacy toward countries outside the U.S. alliance.
This combination creates a volatile dynamic. An attack on Kharg’s oil facilities could trigger Iranian retaliation against energy infrastructure in the Gulf. At the same time, Iran’s attempt to control access to Hormuz could disrupt international consensus and complicate Washington’s strategy.
The result is a conflict that increasingly revolves around the world’s most significant energy bottleneck. As both sides escalate tensions, the Strait of Hormuz becomes not only the center of war but also a theater where the global balance of power around oil, shipping and alliances is tested. Trump’s Kharg move, seen as a response to Iran’s Hormuz strategy, has the potential to set the Gulf on fire.
