Media: What Is Trump’s Purpose in Threatening to Destroy Khark Island?

Trump’s vacillating stance has become painfully clear. On Monday, he simultaneously claimed to be engaged in “serious” negotiations with what he described as Iran’s “more rational new regime” to end the war, asserting “significant progress” had been made; yet he also threatened that if no agreement is reached “promptly,” and if the Strait of Hormuz cannot be immediately “opened,” the U.S. will “destroy” all of Iran’s power plants, oil wells, desalination facilities, and Iran’s largest oil terminal—Khark Island.

Trump had already mentioned on Sunday the possibility of launching a ground invasion to seize Khark Island, which safeguards over 90% of Iran’s crude oil exports, thereby gaining full control over Iran’s oil resources. So, on the scale between “destruction” and “negotiation,” is Trump truly aiming to destroy Iran—or is he genuinely seeking dialogue? Is the so-called “serious” negotiation he claims to be conducting merely a facade, or is it real? In any case, although it's difficult for people to discern the truth behind the words of this U.S. president, as his threats grow increasingly severe, many are growing concerned that Trump’s balance is tipping toward “destruction.”

In short, whether through a ground invasion or destructive threats, Khark Island—the nerve center of Iran’s oil industry—has become the focal point of Trump’s recent warnings, intended to pressure Tehran. Over the weekend, he assured the Financial Times: “We might occupy Khark Island—or we might not. We have many options. I don’t believe they have any defensive capability. We could take the island very easily.” On Monday, he threatened to “destroy” the island if talks fail.

Yet despite massive U.S.-Israeli airstrikes, Iran continues to launch missiles and drones daily in retaliation, showing no sign of backing down. Tehran repeatedly insists it will defend the island to the death, declaring that should U.S. forces dare land, the island would become a grave for American troops.

We must ask: why does Trump keep insisting on seizing Khark Island? Does capturing the island necessarily unlock the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz? Can it truly control the lifeline of the Iranian regime? First, let’s gain a rough understanding of the island’s geography and strategic value.

Located in the northern part of the Gulf, 30 kilometers from Iran’s coastline and 500 kilometers from the Strait of Hormuz, this rugged, thorn-covered enclave is Iran’s largest oil terminal. Around 90% of Iran’s crude oil exports pass through here. While there are no oil wells on the island, it hosts pipelines, oil storage tanks, reservoirs, and other infrastructure essential for transporting “black gold,” along with military installations—some of which have already been bombed.

The U.S. Central Command claimed: “On March 13, the U.S. conducted precise and large-scale bombing operations targeting Khark Island, destroying facilities storing sea mines, missile storage depots, and multiple military installations—altogether striking 90 military objectives.” According to U.S. intelligence sources cited by CNN, Tehran has recently reinforced troop presence on the island and redeployed defensive systems, particularly portable surface-to-air missiles, and laid mines.

If the U.S. seeks to occupy the island, it faces two main options: airborne assault via parachute drop or amphibious landing from the sea—possibly both. Public information indicates that the U.S. is assembling paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division and Marines in the region. The Sown Center analysis concludes: “The reinforcement of combat units paves the way for a potential ground offensive.”

General Joseph Votel, former commander of U.S. Central Command, stated in March on the professional website *The War Zone*: “Capturing a small island like Khark Island, I estimate would require one Marine Corps battalion… meaning forces between 800 to 1,000 personnel—perhaps slightly fewer, but certainly not significantly more.” However, Professor Phillips O’Brien from the University of St Andrews emphasizes: “Seizing Khark Island and holding it are two entirely different things.” He argues that even after occupation, U.S. forces would face direct threats from Iranian missiles and drones, making sustained control extremely difficult.

Moreover, not far from the island lies a major Iranian military base. Pierre Razoux from France’s FMES Research Center notes: “Most notably, the city of Bushehr, located about 60 kilometers away, is a key military hub. Iranians use it as a base to defend the entire northern Persian Gulf region—including the defense of Khark Island.”

Beyond the difficulty of defending the island, what is the actual purpose of the U.S. occupying it? Is Trump aiming to open the Strait of Hormuz blockade? To overthrow the Iranian regime? To force concessions on Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missile development? The public remains unclear—and it’s questionable whether Trump himself fully understands his own intentions.

Regardless, the Sown Center stresses that occupying Khark Island “could inflict catastrophic damage on Iran’s economy, which heavily depends on oil revenues.” And in the short term, controlling Khark Island might give Trump leverage to compel Iran into negotiations.

But O’Brien warns: “If the Iranians refuse to yield, what will the U.S. do? Will they retaliate by destroying all of Khark Island’s infrastructure? If so, the consequences could backfire.” Because “oil prices would surge and remain high for a long time. This would likely encourage Iran to maintain the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz for longer.” The logic is simple: “If they can’t export their own oil, why would they allow others to?”

Furthermore, if Trump’s sole goal were to restore maritime shipping in the Gulf, Khark Island is actually not crucial compared to the numerous islands Iran controls around the Strait of Hormuz.

Source: rfi

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1861145334242439/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.