‘Fossil-fuel imperialism’: Trump’s hankering for Iranian oil runs deep
Analysts assert that the United States holds an entrenched belief that it is entitled to foreign resources, a notion that former President Donald Trump has endorsed for many years.
Recently, Trump articulated his desire to “take the oil in Iran” by gaining control over a critical export hub, a sentiment he has consistently echoed for over a decade.
This declaration reflects his apparent disregard for international law and encapsulates what experts describe as “fossil-fuel imperialism.”
“Trump genuinely believes that the U.S. is entitled to any resource it desires,” stated Patrick Bigger, co-director of the Transition Security Project, a research initiative exploring the intersections of climate, security, and militarization. “This perspective embodies a ‘might-makes-right’ mentality that is both ethically troubling and fundamentally misguided.”
Trump is expected to provide an update on the situation in Iran on Wednesday. On Tuesday, he suggested that the conflict could conclude within weeks, which prompted a surge in the stock market as investors anticipated a de-escalation.
However, Iran has asserted that it requires guarantees against future attacks in order to cease its counteroffensive. As it stands, hostilities continue. Iran recently targeted a fully loaded crude oil tanker docked at the port of Dubai. Additionally, the President threatened on Monday that if the strategically significant Strait of Hormuz is not “immediately” reopened and a peace agreement not reached “shortly,” the U.S. intends to “blow up and completely obliterate” Iran’s energy infrastructure. Notably, Iran has effectively restricted access to the Strait of Hormuz to most commercial vessels since the onset of war in late February.
This encompasses Kharg Island, the five-mile stretch responsible for transporting 90% of Iran’s oil exports, along with crucial electric generating plants and oil wells.
The day before, Trump expressed to the Financial Times his desire for U.S. forces to take control of Kharg Island along with its oil reserves.
“To be honest with you, my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran,” he remarked, adding that there are some “stupid people” in the U.S. questioning this approach.
Trump's remarks have led Amir Handjani, an energy attorney and fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, to state that he has “completely discredited” his rationale for the war against Iran.
“It undermines all of the other justifications Trump has offered for engaging in this conflict, painting it as a clear pursuit of natural resources—concerns that many already suspect when the U.S. enters military confrontations,” explained Handjani, who is also a partner at the communications firm Karv Global.
Handjani pointed out that Trump has expressed interest in that same export hub for decades. In a 1988 interview while promoting his book The Art of the Deal in the UK, Trump told the Guardian’s Polly Toynbee that he would approach Iran aggressively if he were to become president.
“I’d do a number on Kharg Island. I’d go in and take it,” he stated. “It’d be good for the world to take them on.”
Trump's calls for the U.S. to seize oil are not limited to Iran. During his first presidential campaign, he frequently suggested that the Bush administration should have taken Iraq’s oil to “reimburse” itself for the costs incurred during the conflict.
Handjani remarked, “It was an ill-conceived comment, as the Iraqi populace did not invite the U.S. to invade and overthrow their government in exchange for oil.”
Upon taking office, Trump reiterated a similar strategy regarding Syria, implying that since the U.S. had intervened in the region, it possessed rights to the country's oil, proposing that Exxon Mobil could lead the efforts to exploit those resources. Later in his presidency, while escalating his campaign against Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, he suggested that oil sourced from the nation could be claimed as a U.S. asset, saying, “Maybe we will sell it, maybe we will keep it, maybe we’ll use it in the strategic reserves.”
Engaging in warfare to seize another nation's resources is illegal, according to Handjani.
“There exists no legal framework that justifies waging war for the appropriation of sovereign nations' natural resources,” he asserted. “International law and the rules of warfare do not permit such actions.”
Kharg Island
The actual takeover of Kharg Island or any comprehensive assault on it would pose significant challenges. These obstacles are particularly pronounced given that Iranian missiles have rendered U.S. military bases in the region largely ineffective.
A U.S. Marine operation would likely require paratrooper deployments, placing them in a vulnerable position amidst intense fire. Moreover, such an initiative would likely provoke substantial retaliation from Iran, with the potential to destabilize the global economy, warned Handjani.
“In response to the loss of 90% of their export capacity, Iran could retaliate by targeting the oil export terminals and production facilities of Arab nations in the Persian Gulf,” he stated.
In this eventuality, oil prices could potentially skyrocket to $200 or $300 per barrel if a substantial portion of global oil and gas supplies were taken offline for an extended period.
“The consequences would thrust us into an uncharted territory with ramifications that are unfathomable,” he stressed. “However, we must take seriously the likelihood of such scenarios, given his unpredictable behavior.”
The intensifying conflict has already resulted in significant loss of life and has initiated an unprecedented disruption in global energy supplies. While ordinary citizens endure hardships due to the war and the subsequent fuel price surges, fossil fuel companies—many of which contributed substantial financial support to Trump during his previous electoral campaign—stand to gain considerably.
Share this story