This Monday, Donald Trump has crossed a new threshold in the verbal escalation with Tehran. The American president claims that “significant progress” have been carried out, but warns that if no agreement is reached "quickly" and if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened to commercial traffic, The United States could strike Iranian power plants, oil wells and Kharg IslandA few hours earlier, he had also mentioned the possibility of “take the oil” Iranian and to seize Kharg, while assuring that an agreement with Iran could be concluded fairly quickly.
Kharg, a highly symbolic target and vital hub of the Iranian economy
The threat is far from trivial. Kharg is much more than just an island in the Gulf: it serves as an export terminal for approximately 90% of Iran's oil shipments. Targeting Kharg, or threatening to do so, is therefore tantamount to striking at the economic heart of the Islamic Republic, at a time when the regional conflict is already driving up energy prices and alarming global markets.
This latest statement from Trump didn't come out of nowhere. On March 13, the United States had already conducted strikes against military targets on Kharg Island. Reuters reported at the time that Trump was pleased to have... “totally obliterated” The military objectives on the island were maintained while leaving the oil infrastructure intact, before raising the possibility of reversing this restraint if Iran continued to obstruct navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. In other words, the White House is no longer brandishing a theoretical threat: it is relying on an operation already carried out to put pressure on Tehran.
Diplomacy under the pressure of bombs
The paradox is this: Washington speaks of negotiation, but with the language of all-out war. Trump claims that the United States is discussing “directly and indirectly” with Iran, while Tehran acknowledges receiving a fifteen-point American proposal, it denies the existence of direct negotiations. At the same time, the American president continues to mention thousands of potential targets in Iran and suggests that the military option remains fully on the table. This double standard fuels uncertainty: diplomacy exists, but under the explicit threat of escalating the conflict.
The risk of a global economic war
The consequences are already extending beyond the military theater. On Monday, Brent crude was trading around $115 a barrel, nearly 60% higher since the start of the open war in late February. In Cairo, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi made a direct appeal to Donald Trump to end the war, stating that a price of over $200 a barrel was not an exaggerated scenario. He also warned of a potential shock to global supplies and food prices due to disruptions affecting energy and fertilizers.
Madrid is distancing itself from Washington
For its part, Spain has made a politically significant decision: Madrid has closed its airspace to American aircraft involved in the attacks against Iran, in addition to refusing the use of its bases for operations related to this war. Defense Minister Margarita Robles presented this measure as the logical consequence of Spain's refusal to participate in a conflict deemed unilateral and contrary to international law. This choice complicates American logistics to the Middle East and illustrates Washington's growing isolation on this issue, even among its allies.
Seizing Kharg: a show of force or a dangerous gamble?
On the ground, the prospect of capturing Kharg raises doubts. The US administration is considering deploying ground troops to the island, but the military risks of such an operation are considerable. An amphibious force would have to transit the Strait of Hormuz and then hold a position exposed to Iranian missiles, drones, and artillery fire from the mainland. Clearly, threatening Kharg can serve as political leverage; actually attempting to control it would open a far more uncertain and potentially much more deadly military sequence.
Another red line crossed
By verbally targeting Kharg, Donald Trump is not merely threatening strategic infrastructure; he is designating the most vulnerable point of the Iranian economy as an instrument of coercion. The scope of this threat is twofold. It places Tehran under maximum pressure at a time when channels of dialogue still exist, but it also increases the risk of regional escalation, a sustained surge in energy prices, and a more pronounced rupture between Washington and some of its partners. At this stage, the question is no longer simply whether an agreement can still be reached, but how long the region can remain on the brink without falling into it.
