Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Donald Trump announced over the weekend that he wants to "take the oil in Iran" by seizing control of Kharg Island, the strategic outpost through which roughly 90% of Iran’s oil exports flow. Experts say the remark underscores a blatant disregard for international law and exemplifies what they term “fossil‑fuel imperialism.” Patrick Bigger, co‑director of the Transition Security Project, described the approach as a "might‑makes‑right" logic that is both "abhorrent and spectacularly miscalculated." Trump is slated to give an update on the Iran‑U.S. conflict on Wednesday. He previously claimed the war could end within weeks, a statement that sent the stock market soaring on expectations of de‑escalation. Iran, however, has insisted it needs guarantees against future attacks before halting its counter‑offensive. The fighting continues, highlighted by an Iranian strike on a fully loaded crude tanker in Dubai and threats to "blow up and completely obliterate" Iran’s energy infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened promptly. Kharg Island, a five‑mile strip that handles the bulk of Iran’s oil shipments, along with its power plants and oil wells, has been singled out by Trump. He told the Financial Times that U.S. forces should take over the island and the oil stored there. "My favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran," Trump said, adding that critics in the United States are "stupid people." Amir Handjani, an energy lawyer at the Quincy Institute, warned that the statement "completely discredited" the war’s stated objectives and revealed a classic play for natural resources. Handjani noted that Trump’s desire to seize Iranian oil is not new; he voiced similar ambitions in a 1988 interview while promoting The Art of the Deal, saying he would "do a number on Kharg Island" if elected. The former president has also floated comparable ideas for Iraq, Syria and Venezuela, suggesting the United States could appropriate their oil to offset war costs or bolster strategic reserves. Handjani emphasized that international law provides no framework for waging war to capture sovereign nations' natural resources. From a military perspective, taking Kharg Island would be extremely challenging. Iranian missile defenses have rendered regional U.S. bases inoperable, meaning any assault would likely require a parachute insertion of Marines into heavy fire, with the risk of massive Iranian retaliation. Handjani warned that such retaliation could target oil export terminals across the Persian Gulf, potentially driving crude prices to $200‑$300 per barrel and destabilising the global economy. The conflict has already caused the largest-ever disruption to global energy supplies, killing thousands and sparking sharp fuel‑price shocks. While consumers bear the brunt, major fossil‑fuel companies are enjoying windfall profits. Bigger noted that higher oil prices benefit oil majors and are being used as a pretext to expand U.S. drilling, further entrenching reliance on carbon‑intensive fuels. According to Bigger, Trump’s rhetoric reveals a belief that "fossil fuels are a linchpin of his domestic industrial strategy," and that controlling oil equates to controlling global power. He argues that this mindset threatens the international order and hampers the transition to cleaner energy.

The article delves into the factors driving Donald Trump’s attention to Iran’s Kharg Island, a key oil‑export hub in the Persian Gulf. It outlines how the island’s strategic location could serve broader geopolitical calculations, potentially influencing regional power balances and U.S. leverage in Middle‑East negotiations. Economic considerations are also highlighted, with the island’s role in global oil shipments offering possible avenues for energy‑related leverage. Additionally, the analysis touches on domestic political narratives that Trump may be leveraging to reshape his foreign‑policy legacy. By connecting these threads, the report seeks to clarify why Kharg Island has re‑emerged as a focal point in Trump‑related discourse.

US President Donald Trump has stated that his 'preference would be to take the oil' in Iran, sparking concerns about the potential for a US invasion or occupation of the country. Iran is one of the world's biggest oil producers, holding around 24 percent of the Middle East's and 12 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, with about 157 billion barrels of proven crude oil.The Trump administration has threatened to target Iran's energy infrastructure, including oil wells, if Tehran does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which has been under a de facto Iranian blockade for weeks, triggering a global energy crisis. The US has also unveiled plans to prepare for limited ground operations in Iran, potentially including raids on Kharg Island and coastal sites near the Strait of Hormuz.Seizing Iranian oil would not be easy, as the US would have to occupy Iran's oil production sites and refineries, essentially occupying mainland Iran. However, if the US were to lift sanctions on Iranian oil after seizing it, it could lead to a flow of more Iranian oil into global markets, bringing down oil prices.The US-Israeli war on Iran has already sent global oil prices soaring, with benchmark Brent crude rising to more than 3 percent on Monday to $116 a barrel – the highest level in nearly two weeks. The oil price was about $65 per barrel before the war.In 2023, Iran's gross domestic product (GDP) was around $457.5bn, according to World Bank data. Iran's net oil export revenues were estimated at $53bn, equivalent to roughly 12 percent of Iran's GDP.This is not the first time the US has shown an interest in Iranian oil. In 1953, the government of Mohammad Mossadegh, Iran's first democratically elected prime minister, was toppled in a CIA-orchestrated coup after he nationalised the British-controlled firm Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), the predecessor of modern-day BP.

Islamabad became the focal point of a new diplomatic track when the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt arrived this weekend, joining Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar. The quartet pledged to channel U.S. and Iranian confidence in Pakistan’s ability to host direct talks aimed at a comprehensive settlement. At the close of the meeting, Dar announced the creation of a Committee of Four—senior officials from each foreign ministry tasked with ironing out the procedural details of the peace process. The gathering marks the evolution of a broader Arab‑Islamic consultative effort that began in Riyadh on March 19 into a focused four‑nation push, with Pakistan positioned as the primary conduit between Washington and Tehran. In a candid interview with the Financial Times, U.S. President Donald Trump declared his “favourite thing is to take the oil in Iran,” hinting at a possible seizure of Kharg Island, which handles roughly 90 % of Iran’s crude exports. He reiterated an April 6 deadline for Tehran to accept a deal or face U.S. strikes on its energy infrastructure, yet on Air Force One he added, “I do see a deal in Iran, yeah. Could be soon,” describing the negotiations as “extremely well” progressing. Analysts stress that these mixed signals underscore the central tension confronting Pakistan’s initiative. While Islamabad and its partners are building a multilateral framework to curb escalation, Israeli strikes continue and the U.S. military presence in the region expands. Key diplomatic insights came from former Pakistani officials. Former information minister Mushahid Hussain Sayed highlighted the meeting as the first institutional Muslim‑world effort to open a dialogue pathway, noting that Pakistan and Turkey are among the most credible interlocutors—one a nuclear power, the other a NATO member. He cautioned, however, that the steps are “baby steps” in a war that is rapidly complicating. Former ambassador Masood Khan described the Committee of Four as a structured back‑channel enabling a “step‑by‑step, layered, and calibrated process.” He outlined four potential stages: trust‑building measures, cease‑fire negotiations, direct talks on the nuclear programme and the Strait of Hormuz, and finally reciprocal commitments. Khan warned that Iran’s demands for war reparations and sovereignty over the Strait could prove the toughest hurdles. High‑level outreach extended beyond the region. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif held a 90‑minute call with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, while China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi pledged full backing for the initiative. A senior Pakistani diplomat confirmed Dar’s planned visit to China on March 31, underscoring the strategic weight of the Pakistan‑China relationship. On the economic front, Iran’s agreement to allow 20 Pakistani‑flagged vessels through the Strait of Hormuz represents the most immediate confidence‑building measure. The strait remains effectively closed to regular shipping, prompting the International Energy Agency to label the disruption as the “worst oil shock in history,” surpassing the crises of 1973 and 1979. Brent crude surged above $116 per barrel, up more than 50 % since the war began on February 28, while WTO Director‑General Ngozi Okonjo‑Iweala warned of the “worst trade disruptions in the past 80 years.” Nevertheless, experts argue that the Strait should not become the centerpiece of any settlement. The long‑term resolution will likely involve all eight littoral states under UNCLOS and established legal precedents, with the immediate priority being a broader halt to hostilities. Military dynamics remain volatile. U.S. Central Command reported that an amphibious task force of roughly 3,500 Marines and sailors aboard the USS Tripoli arrived in the region, with an additional 2,200 Marines and 2,000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division slated to deploy. Trump affirmed that military options are still on the table, and reports suggest the Pentagon is preparing for potential ground operations. Iran’s leadership remains skeptical. A spokesperson for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the U.S. 15‑point plan—calling for a one‑month cease‑fire, handover of highly enriched uranium, a halt to enrichment, missile curbs, and an end to proxy support—as “unrealistic, illogical and excessive.” Tehran’s counter‑proposal, aired on Press TV, demands a halt to aggression, concrete guarantees against recurrence, reparations, and formal recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. Analysts such as Reza Khanzadeh of George Mason University argue that the burden of compromise falls on Washington, noting that Iran will not sacrifice regime survival. Meanwhile, former diplomat Masood Khan identified the most decisive confidence‑building measure as a U.S. commitment to halt Israeli attacks on Iran and Lebanon—a step he admits is “easier said than done.” In sum, Pakistan’s diplomatic corridor offers a glimmer of hope, but deep mistrust, divergent demands, and an accelerating military buildup render the path to a lasting settlement precarious.

In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealed that President Donald Trump favors diplomacy as a means to end the conflict with Iran. Rubio emphasized that direct talks between the US and Tehran are currently underway through intermediaries.Earlier, Trump threatened to target Iran's civilian energy infrastructure, including power plants, oil wells, and Kharg Island, if Tehran did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Despite these military threats, Rubio's comments suggest a preference for diplomatic engagement.

Donald Trump has issued a stark warning to Iran, threatening to "obliterate" its power stations and fresh water plants if a peace deal is not reached soon. This comes as the US and Israel's joint war against Iran enters its second month, with Tehran remaining defiant in the face of US peace proposals.The conflict has already had significant repercussions, including a record monthly rise in oil prices and concerns over a potential US ground operation to seize Kharg Island. Trump's threat to destroy civilian infrastructure, such as power and water facilities, has been condemned by human rights groups as a potential war crime.The White House has also suggested that Arab countries may be asked to help foot the bill for the war, adding a new dimension to the conflict. "It's an idea that I know that he has," said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.International pressure is mounting, with Spain closing its airspace to US planes involved in the conflict and the UK's prime minister reiterating that "this is not our war and we are not going to get dragged into it". Egypt's president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, has called on Trump to end the war, warning that "no one will be able to stop the war in our region".The conflict threatens to plunge the global economy into recession and trigger shortages of food and pharmaceuticals. The International Monetary Fund has warned that "all roads lead to higher prices and slower growth worldwide" if the conflict continues.

US Representative Nancy Mace, a Republican, has emphasized that Congress should have a say in any decisions to deploy troops to Iran. Her comments come amid concerns over the administration's plans and reports that the Pentagon is preparing for limited ground operations in Iran. Mace's stance underscores division within President Donald Trump's political party on the issue of military action in Iran. She expressed her concerns during an interview on CNN, stating, 'If we're going to do a conventional ground operation with Marines and 82nd Airborne that is a ground war that I believe Congress should have a say and we should be briefed.' The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon is preparing for limited ground operations in Iran, including raids on Kharg Island and sites near the Strait of Hormuz. Mace added, 'We don't want troops on the ground. I think that's a line for a lot of people. If we're going to do that, then come to Congress and get the proper authorities to do so.' President Trump has not publicly supported deploying US troops to Iran but has maintained that all options remain on the table. His endgame and final timeline for the conflict have remained unclear. Military analysts and Trump's own director of national intelligence have noted that while Iran's military capabilities have been diminished, the country still maintains the ability to inflict damage on the region and potentially rebuild. Inter-party divisions are evident, with some Republican lawmakers expressing concerns about the potential consequences of a ground invasion. Former member of Congress and Trump ally Matt Gaetz directly decried any possible ground invasion, stating, 'A ground invasion of Iran will make our country poorer and less safe.' The US has increased its military presence in the region, with about 3,500 additional soldiers arriving in the Middle East on board the USS Tripoli on Saturday. The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump was weighing sending an additional 10,000 troops to the region, where about 40,000 US troops are typically stationed.

The Pentagon is gearing up for weeks of limited ground operations in Iran, potentially including raids on Kharg Island and coastal sites near the Strait of Hormuz, according to US officials. These plans, which fall short of a full invasion, may involve special operations and conventional infantry troops.The operations would expose US personnel to Iranian drones and missiles, ground fire, and improvised explosives. The plans have been discussed within the administration over the past month, with objectives under consideration including the seizure of Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub in the Gulf.According to officials, the objectives would likely take weeks, not months to complete. The Pentagon has not responded to requests for comment, and Iran has yet to respond to the report.The developments come as Pakistan mediates between Washington and Tehran, hosting talks with the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt. Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf warned that Iran is prepared to respond to any ground attack, stating that the enemy's plans for a ground attack are being met with readiness from Iranian forces.Iran's navy chief, Shahram Irani, also warned that the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier would be targeted if it comes within range. The situation remains tense, with Iran posing a credible threat in the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, which lies between Yemen and Djibouti.

The conflict in the Middle East has taken a dramatic turn as Yemen's Iran-backed Houthis launched a second wave of attacks on Israel since joining the conflict on Saturday. The Houthis have vowed to continue their military operations in the coming days until Israel "ceases its attacks and aggression".In a significant escalation, two powerful explosions shook northern Tehran early on Sunday, with air defenses operating in the Iranian capital. The blasts occurred around 7:20 am, but it was not immediately clear what was targeted.Meanwhile, the US is reportedly preparing plans for ground operations in Iran, with the Trump administration having already deployed US Marines to the Middle East. The Pentagon is considering weeks of ground operations in Iran, potentially including raids on Kharg Island and coastal sites near the Strait of Hormuz.The entry of the Houthis into the conflict poses a direct threat to the Bab al-Mandab strait at the southern end of the Red Sea, a critical choke point in the supply chain of energy supplies and other trade in and out of the Middle East. A shutdown of the Bab al-Mandab, located between Yemen and the Horn of Africa, would amplify the already grave impact of the war on the global economy and could also reignite a Saudi-Yemen conflict.Exiled Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi has told one of the US's biggest annual gatherings of conservatives that he is ready to lead a new Iranian government and would call on the country's citizens to rise up when the "right moment arrives".Iran's Revolutionary Guard has threatened to target US universities in the Middle East after saying US-Israeli strikes had deliberately targeted two Iranian universities.