Iran’s small Kharg Island has assumed a central place in Western discussions about the course of the war involving the United States and Israel on one side, and Iran on the other. The attention given to the island by a number of Western newspapers suggests that it could represent one of the decisive points in the ongoing confrontation between Washington and Tehran.
Located around 25 kilometres off the Iranian coast, Kharg Island is considered the world’s largest open oil export terminal. It has the capacity to load up to 7 million barrels per day, while between 90 and 95 percent of Iran’s oil exports pass through it due to the shallowness of most of the country’s coastline, which cannot accommodate supertankers.
In its coverage of the island, the Australian Financial Review asked in its headline: “Why Trump Has Left This Iranian Oil Island Untouched”, while Britain’s Daily Telegraph chose the headline: “The Tiny Island That Could Let Trump Defeat Iran Without Sending a Single Soldier”.
In the same direction, France’s Le Figaro referred in its headline to the “highly strategic Kharg Island”, describing it as the centre of Iranian oil that the United States may target. Le Parisien, meanwhile, raised the question of seizing the island and sought to answer whether United States control of Kharg Island could mark a turning point in the war with Iran.
For this reason, Richard Nephew, a former United States official involved in the Iran file, stressed that the island’s importance is so great that “without it, the Iranian economy collapses”. American intelligence documents also state that the oil facilities on Kharg Island are vital to Iran’s oil system, and that their continued operation is necessary for the Iranian economy to function.
The analyses published by these newspapers agree that targeting or seizing the island could cripple Tehran’s financial capabilities. Oil revenues represent a fundamental pillar in financing the state, the armed forces, and regional networks aligned with Iran, making the island an attractive strategic target.
Some experts go so far as to argue that “seizing the island would cut Iran’s oil artery”, while others believe that one of the most effective ways to weaken the Iranian regime would be either to take control of the island or disrupt its oil facilities.
At the same time, however, these same newspapers stress that such an option carries significant risks. Bombing the island could trigger broader escalation across the region. In the Australian Financial Review, Nephew warned that striking Kharg could push Iran to target the oil infrastructure of Gulf states.
Any disruption to Iranian oil exports could also cause severe turmoil in global energy markets. Experts estimate that imposing a blockade on the island or seizing it could raise oil prices by no less than 10 to 12 dollars per barrel, at a time when the market is already facing mounting instability due to tensions in the Strait of Hormuz.
Different Angles, One Strategic Question
Despite this broad agreement, each newspaper offers a different angle in approaching the issue.
The Australian Financial Review argues that the United States and Israel’s restraint in not striking the island so far reflects complex strategic calculations linked to avoiding a fresh shock in global energy markets and preserving the flow of Iranian oil to international markets, particularly to China, which is the main destination for these exports.
The Daily Telegraph, by contrast, focuses on the possibility that the American plan may centre on controlling the island rather than destroying it, thereby giving Washington direct leverage over the Iranian economy without engaging in a wide ground war.
An Early Awareness of the Island’s Importance
The article cites Lithuanian researcher and energy security expert Petras Katinas as saying that “seizing the island would cut Iran’s oil artery”. It also highlights an old statement by current United States President Donald Trump from 1988, in which he said that if the United States came under Iranian attack, “I would go to Kharg Island and take it over”, suggesting that Trump recognised the strategic importance of the island at an early stage.
Le Figaro, for its part, focused on the island’s economic and military significance, explaining that oil revenues are a principal source of funding for the Iranian state and its military institutions, including regional militia networks.
The newspaper attributes to Michael Rubin, a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, the view that seizing the island through a military operation would be “strategically obvious”, since it could undermine Tehran’s ability to finance its activities. At the same time, according to his analysis, it would also pose a major risk to American troops.
Le Parisien highlighted the possible scenarios for dealing with the island, such as imposing a blockade or taking military control of it, considering that any move of this kind could represent a turning point in the war.
Yet it also pointed to the dilemma facing Washington, noting that “any disruption in oil production, wherever it happens, affects prices worldwide”, which places the American administration before the challenge of confronting Iran without causing a sharp rise in energy prices.
It can be said that these varied press readings show that Kharg Island, despite its small size, represents a strategic knot linking economy, energy, and military policy.
For Iran, it is a vital economic lifeline. For Washington, it is a potential pressure point. At the same time, it remains a strategic puzzle, because targeting it may produce military and economic gains, but it could also ignite a global energy crisis and further complicate the conflict in the region.
