The purpose and intent of Trump’s Israeli-backed campaign in Iran is now coming into focus, and we may be a few days away from a world we do not recognise.
US stated goals are about freeing the Iranian people or ensuring Western security. But based on strategic logic a different picture emerges: Trump’s aim is to take control of Iran’s oil for US interests.
This is a forecast, not a confirmed fact. The White House declined to comment on specific strategies regarding key assets like Kharg Island, a tiny dot in the Persian Gulf, that may be about to change geopolitics.
The speculation is now so loud that it demands attention. Reports have emerged that the US administration has internally discussed capturing Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export terminal,, near Heleh on Iran’s Western coast. A source close to the White House told the New York Post that capturing the island “is not so much a matter of if but when, given its critical nature to the outcome of the war” .
Why else would the US bombing campaign, which has struck fuel depots and even desalination plants, leave this single, vital piece of infrastructure miraculously unscathed? .
The Prize: Kharg Island
Kharg Island is a scrap of land that handles 90% of Iran’s crude exports. If the US were to seize it, Iran’s economy would effectively bottom out; fossil fuel exports make up a massive portion of the state’s budget. Iran is responsible for 3% of world oil output, but 14% of Chinese oil imports. That makes it pretty essential to the Chinese economy.
Is it a risk Trump would be prepared to take? The logic is brutal: if you control the terminal, you control the revenue. The future Iranian government would be lucky to see $10 a barrel if the US victors decide to put boots on the ground.
But why wouldn’t Iran just blow it up themselves? Analyst Gregory Brew notes that the Iranians “could very well be incentivized to destroy the infrastructure in Kharg rather than allowing it to fall into enemy hands.” That would hand Washington a symbolic victory while still cratering the Iranian economy. The US is betting that Iran will preserve the asset for a successor government that might be more amenable to Western—and American—interests.
The Sino-Soviet Red Line: Nuclear Escalation?
Here is where my 7-day forecast gets terrifying. If the US seizes Kharg, it is not just taking on Iran; it is threatening the energy security of Iran’s primary strategic partners: Russia and China.
Moscow and Tehran have been deepening ties across multiple fronts. Russia is currently building new units at Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant, a project worth billions . The head of Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom has already warned that explosions have been heard just kilometres from the plant’s perimeter since the US bombing began . He warned that a breach could lead to “radioactive contamination across vast territories” .
If US forces take Kharg or strike too close to Bushehr, Moscow may view it as a direct threat to its nationals (over 600 Russians are at the plant) and its strategic investment . Some reports, which I cannot verify but take seriously, suggest Russia was days away from greenlighting a nuclear “umbrella” or even a strike package to deter the US from crossing this line.
Furthermore, China is feeling the squeeze. Beijing has already ordered an immediate ban on refined fuel exports to conserve oil due to the supply shortage caused by the war . China is Iran’s biggest oil customer, and with the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed, half of China’s oil imports are threatened . If the US seizes Kharg, it effectively holds a knife to the throat of the Chinese economy. Beijing has warned it will take “necessary measures” to safeguard its energy security, and it is unlikely those measures stop at diplomatic statements .
The Axis of Response: North Korea and the Multipolar Gamble
If China’s oil supplies are threatened, the pressure on Russia to act decisively intensifies. North Korea is also watching closely. Pyongyang has already used the US strikes on Iran to justify its own nuclear deterrence strategy, arguing that Iran was attacked because it was negotiating away its power . Kim Jong Un sees nuclear weapons as the “ultimate guarantee” of sovereignty, and the fall of Tehran’s leadership only hardens that resolve .
If Russia were to feel cornered, could it resort to tactical nuclear threats to protect the Bushehr plant or to guarantee safe passage for Chinese tankers? It sounds like doomsday rhetoric, but the alignment of Russia, North Korea, and Iran against the US “unipolar” order is now formalised in frameworks like the proposed “Eurasian Charter” .
What This Means for the Rest of Us
If this escalation spiral continues, the economic blowback will be catastrophic. The International Energy Agency has already released a record 400 million barrels from strategic reserves to stabilize prices, yet oil has surged past $100 a barrel and remains highly volatile . Qatar’s energy minister has warned this war could “bring down the economies of the world” .
Iran is now striking fuel depots and desalination plants across the Gulf, hitting Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia . The IRGC has threatened to “destroy the entire American economy and the world economy” through a prolonged war of attrition .
The US may indeed end up controlling Iran’s oil. But if it does, it may trigger a reaction from Russia and China that turns a regional conflict into a global economic—and potentially nuclear—standoff.
Practical Advice: Think Off-Grid
So that’s the big picture – but what do we do about it? Given this volatility, my advice is not to prepare for the worst-case scenario, but to consider what you might do in a medium-bad one.
What would you do if your phone went off-line? If you had to queue up at an ATM just to get some cash. In a conflict where energy grids and banking systems are legitimate targets, in other words a total war economy, digital dependency is a liability. Ensuring you have basic supplies, alternative energy sources, and access to tangible assets is no longer paranoia; it is prudence.
There is a dark irony in all of this. Just as humanity is racing toward clean energy, we find empires tearing a region apart for the last dregs of the old world—fighting over a resource we know we must abandon.
On March 8, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stood before the press and delivered his government’s “one key message.” He quoted an ancient truth: “Weapons are ominous tools, and should not be used without discretion.”
Meanwhile, in a world where all our old certainties are crumbling away, the most radical act is not hoarding—it is strengthening your community. It is knowing your neighbour’s name, knowing who has medical training, which house has the well, and who you would turn to if the lights went out for good.