In a bold declaration over the weekend, Donald Trump expressed an eagerness to seize control of Iran’s Kharg Island, a crucial oil export hub, reigniting a narrative he has promoted for years. This desire for Iranian oil not only highlights a troubling disregard for international law but also exemplifies a broader pattern of what experts describe as “fossil-fuel imperialism”. As Trump prepares to deliver an update on the ongoing conflict with Iran, his statements raise significant ethical and geopolitical concerns.
The Unfolding Crisis
During a recent media appearance, Trump proclaimed his intention to “take the oil in Iran,” a remark that underscores his longstanding belief that the United States is entitled to the resources it covets. Patrick Bigger, co-director of the Transition Security Project, remarked on this mindset, stating, “It’s a real ‘might-makes-right’ logic that is both abhorrent and spectacularly miscalculated.”
As the conflict escalates, the Iranian government has made it clear that it requires guarantees against future aggression before considering any cessation of hostilities. Currently, Iran remains engaged in active military operations, including an assault on a fully loaded oil tanker in Dubai. On Monday, Trump warned that if the vital Strait of Hormuz was not reopened “immediately,” the US would resort to “blowing up and completely obliterating” Iran’s energy infrastructure. This rhetoric comes as Iran effectively blocks commercial traffic through the strait, a critical passage for global oil trade.
A Long-Standing Obsession
Trump’s fixation with Kharg Island is not a new phenomenon. In a 1988 interview, he openly suggested that if he became president, he would “do a number on Kharg Island,” advocating for a forceful US presence there. His perspective has remained consistent over the decades, as he has previously suggested that the US should have seized Iraq’s oil to “reimburse” itself for the costs of military intervention.
Amir Handjani, an energy lawyer and fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, commented on Trump’s recent statements, stating that they “completely discredit” the rationale behind the war with Iran. Handjani believes that this approach only reinforces long-held suspicions regarding the motivations behind US military engagements, reducing complex geopolitical issues to a crude quest for natural resources.
The Risks of Military Engagement
Engaging in a military operation to take control of Kharg Island presents numerous challenges. Iranian missiles have rendered US military bases in the region largely ineffective, potentially requiring a risky airborne operation to capture the island. Such an action would likely provoke significant retaliation from Iran, with Handjani warning that it could lead to devastating consequences for the global economy.
“If Iran perceives that 90% of its exports are being threatened, they may respond by targeting oil facilities across the Persian Gulf,” he cautioned. Should this scenario unfold, oil prices could skyrocket to unprecedented levels, resulting in economic turmoil worldwide.
The Profiteering of Fossil Fuel Companies
While the conflict has already taken a heavy toll on thousands of lives and disrupted global energy supplies, fossil fuel companies—long-time benefactors of Trump’s political campaigns—are poised to reap substantial profits. As the price of oil remains elevated due to the ongoing crisis, industry giants stand to gain significantly. Bigger noted, “The longer that oil prices stay elevated, the more the oil majors stand to benefit,” emphasising that the war is being leveraged as a justification for increased US drilling activities.
Trump’s approach not only jeopardises the delicate balance of international relations but also entrenches reliance on fossil fuels, complicating the urgent need for a transition to sustainable energy sources. His rhetoric reveals a stark disregard for the future, as he embraces a worldview that equates control of fossil fuels with global dominance.
Why it Matters
Trump’s statements and ambitions are not merely a reflection of personal ideology; they encapsulate a broader, dangerous narrative of militaristic resource acquisition that undermines international law and ethical governance. The implications extend far beyond the battlefield—potentially destabilising global economies and exacerbating climate crises. As the world grapples with the urgent need for a sustainable energy transition, the spectre of fossil-fuel imperialism must be confronted with resolute opposition and unwavering vigilance. The stakes could not be higher, as a miscalculated move in this geopolitical chess game could lead to catastrophic consequences for both humanity and the planet.
