Former President Donald Trump has reignited his controversial stance on seizing Iranian oil, specifically targeting Kharg Island, a key export hub for the nation. Speaking over the weekend, Trump expressed his desire to “take the oil in Iran,” a sentiment that he has echoed for more than a decade. This declaration raises serious concerns about international law and the implications of what experts are calling “fossil-fuel imperialism.”
A Long-Standing Obsession
Trump’s fixation on Iranian resources is not new. In an interview dating back to 1988, he indicated that if he were ever to hold the presidency, he would adopt a tough approach towards Iran, including the seizure of Kharg Island. “I’d go in and take it,” he told The Guardian, underscoring a mindset that sees military action as a means to control natural resources.
Fast forward to the present, and Trump’s comments have reignited debates about America’s entitlement to foreign resources. Patrick Bigger, co-director of the Transition Security Project, highlights this dangerous mindset: “It’s a real ‘might-makes-right’ logic that is both abhorrent and spectacularly miscalculated.”
Implications of War and Market Reactions
On Tuesday, Trump suggested that the ongoing conflict with Iran could conclude soon, prompting a surge in the stock market as investors anticipated a possible de-escalation. However, the reality on the ground tells a different story. Iran has reiterated that it requires guarantees against future aggression before considering a ceasefire. Just days before Trump’s comments, Iran escalated tensions by targeting a crude oil tanker in Dubai port.
In a stark warning, Trump stated that if the crucial Strait of Hormuz remains closed, the U.S. may resort to destroying Iran’s energy infrastructure. This includes not only Kharg Island, which accounts for 90% of Iran’s oil exports, but also vital electric plants and oil wells. The situation is further complicated by Iran’s blockade of the strait, which has severely restricted commercial traffic since the war began in late February.
Legal and Economic Ramifications
Trump’s aspirations to seize oil from Iran are not merely controversial; they are illegal under international law. Amir Handjani, an energy lawyer and fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, underscores that there is no legal framework allowing a nation to go to war for the purpose of commandeering another country’s resources. “There is no rubric under international law that permits this,” he states firmly.
The prospect of an actual takeover of Kharg Island poses significant logistical challenges. U.S. military bases in the region would be highly vulnerable to Iranian missile attacks, making any ground invasion perilous. Should the U.S. attempt to seize the island, it could provoke a massive retaliation from Iran, leading to further destabilisation of the global economy. Handjani warns that this could send oil prices soaring, with predictions of costs reaching as high as $300 a barrel if Iran retaliates against other oil-producing nations.
The Fossil Fuel Factor
As the conflict continues, it is important to consider the broader context of fossil fuel interests. While millions suffer from the repercussions of the war and rising fuel prices, oil companies—many of which have historically supported Trump—are witnessing substantial profits. Bigger notes, “The longer that oil prices stay elevated, the more the oil majors stand to benefit.” He warns that the current conflict is being leveraged as a justification for increased U.S. drilling, further entrenching reliance on fossil fuels.
Trump’s rhetoric and actions reflect a dangerous belief in “fossil-fuel imperialism.” His approach suggests that securing control over oil is integral to his vision for America’s industrial future. Bigger argues that this perspective not only jeopardises international relations but also undermines global efforts to transition towards sustainable energy.
Why it Matters
Trump’s fixation on Iranian oil and his willingness to employ military force to acquire it not only raises significant ethical and legal questions but also threatens to escalate an already volatile situation in the Middle East. As the war drags on, the consequences could ripple through global markets, affecting energy prices and international stability. This situation serves as a stark reminder of the perilous intersection of geopolitics and natural resources, with the potential for disastrous implications not just for the nations directly involved, but for the entire world.
