SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
oil
'Grim and Stupid': Trump Hints at US Ground Invasion to Seize ‘Total Control’ of Iranian Oil
Senior officials have warned that an invasion of Iran’s Kharg Island could cause many American casualties. But Trump said the US would “make a fortune.”
Jun 11, 2026
While promising more strikes against Iran on Thursday, President Donald Trump suggested that the US would soon be "taking" Kharg Island in an imperialist bid to seize "total control" of the country's oil and gas market, an operation that would likely require ground troops.
“The United States will be hitting Iran (Whose Navy, Air Force, Radar, Anti Aircraft, and all other forms of Defense, together with most of its offensive capability, are GONE!), VERY HARD TONIGHT,” the president wrote in a Truth Social post, following days of strikes that hit military infrastructure and also damaged a pair of reservoirs that left around 20,000 people without drinking water.
“At some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets, much like we have with Venezuela, which is working out brilliantly for both Venezuela and the United States of America,” he added.
It's not the first time Trump has threatened to take the island, which handles about 90% of Iran's crude oil exports and is of paramount importance, as Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the US-Israeli war has sent oil prices skyrocketing and resulted in the most severe inflation the US has seen in over three years.
Like in Venezuela, where Trump said the point of the US operation to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro was to "get the oil flowing" to US corporations, the president said his objective in taking Kharg Island was explicitly about enriching the US by using raw force to commandeer Iran's natural resources.
Trump: "My preference has always been to take Kharg Island. I don't know that America has the stomach for it, to be honest with it. You'd make a fortune." pic.twitter.com/5ub1HK4WMH
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 11, 2026
"My preference has always been to take Kharg Island," he said on a phone interview with Fox News on Thursday morning. "I don't know that America has the stomach for it, to be honest with you. You'd make a fortune..."
“We did it with Venezuela,” he continued. "Venezuela’s worked out great for everybody. We’ve taken millions and millions of barrels of oil out of Venezuela. We’ve brought them to Houston and various other places, Louisiana. Refineries that we have that are incredible, they’ve gone 24 hours a day. Making a fortune.“
However, he said he wasn't sure that the country, which is strongly opposed to strikes against Iran according to recent polls, "has the appetite" for it.
As senior CNN political correspondent Aaron Blake explained, "it's widely assumed that taking and keeping Kharg Island would require ground troops," an idea that just 18% of Americans said they supported in a May survey from the Institute for Global Affairs. Even Republicans were more likely to oppose boots on the ground than to support them, according to that poll.
The Trump administration has had plans drawn up to invade the island as far back as March, but they were reportedly shelved as US officials feared large numbers of American casualties, especially as Iran had prepared for an invasion by laying anti-personnel and armor mines.
Despite being aware of the plan's unpopularity with the American public, Trump said on Thursday that taking Kharg Island would be "a guarantee if I want to do it."
President Trump is now publicly claiming that the United States will SEIZE KHARG ISLAND. What are the advantages to doing so, what are the disadvantages, and is this a viable strategy?
Let’s start with the disadvantages first, because… it’s grim. And stupid.
One of the key… pic.twitter.com/yZeVAPRB3D
— Brett Erickson (@BrettErickson28) June 11, 2026
Brett Erickson, a sanctions and geopolitical-risk expert who serves as managing principal of Obsidian Risk Advisors, said the idea was "grim and stupid."
“Their exports [from the island] are not even close to what they were prior to the war, or even throughout March and the first half of April,” he explained. “In the last five weeks, Iran has loaded a whopping one vessel at Kharg Island.”
He added that since the island is a "fixed position," it "would constantly come under fire from drones and missile barrages."
"We would likely, in the absolute best case, lose hundreds of lives," he said. Worst case? Well into the thousands. Would it change anything about the war? No. It literally would not matter."
The only thing to be gained, he added, would be "a lot of Americans dying for an oil export hub that is not being used, and that is blockaded anyway."
Asked by reporters on Capitol Hill about Trump's threats to invade the island, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) hardly seemed bullish on the idea. He said he believed Trump was "communicating directly with our adversaries over there," adding, "I would not put too much stock in the details of that right now."
But the idea does have its cheerleaders. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is credited with helping Israel persuade Trump to launch the war in the first place.
The notorious war hawk, who previously compared taking Kharg Island favorably to the World War II Battle of Iwo Jima, where the US suffered 26,000 casualties, said on Thursday that Trump was “right to put on the table the taking of Kharg Island” and thanked the president for “going the extra mile to obtain a diplomatic solution to the Iranian conflict.”
US Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) argued that invading the island without approval from Congress "would be brazenly unconstitutional."
"American troops would die during the invasion," he said. "And then every day Iran would try to kill more American troops on Kharg Island."
Four Republicans joined every Democrat last week to pass a war powers resolution meant to halt Trump's ability to wage war against Iran without approval from Congress.
In the wake of Trump's threats to invade the Island, Lieu said the "Senate must pass the House’s war powers resolution."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Without a US-Iran Peace Deal, the World Is Headed for an Energy Crisis Apocalypse
Global reserves of petroleum could fall so low by September, if the crisis is not resolved, that they will reach what analysts call “an operational floor.”
Jun 06, 2026
The International Energy Agency has made its May report free to download, and the news is not good for the second and third quarters of this year, i.e. April-September. The IEA hopes things will look up in the fourth quarter, but premises that expectation on an early end to the US conflict with Iran and a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
At the moment (June 5, 2026), there does not seem much movement on that front, and in fact the US and Iran are not only skirmishing with one another but Iran is making good its threat to hurt US allies like Bahrain and Kuwait every time the US hurts Iran.
One was killed and dozens injured in Kuwait on Wednesday by Iranian Shahed drone barrages that also damaged the airport. Kuwait Airlines shut down briefly but is now flying from a different terminal; it is the only carrier flying from Kuwait. Iran also targeted the HQ of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain but CENTCOM says the missiles were intercepted. Iran says the attacks were in reaction to US strikes on Qeshm Island, which is a base for Iranian missiles and a radar installation.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Friday Iran time that no progress has been made in talks with the US, though contacts are ongoing.
Last week alone, US petroleum reserves fell by 10.6 million barrels, to the lowest level seen since 2004.
In the meantime, the IEA says that in Q2, ending June 30, world demand for petroleum will be down by 2.45 million barrels a day. This reduction is what economists call demand destruction, and it is a very bad sign. People are just using less petroleum because it is more expensive than it was before the US and Israel attacked Iran on February 28. In the US, gasoline is up by 35% to 50%. In Europe, diesel, which runs trucks, was the equivalent of $6.78 a gallon in February, and is now $8.02 per gallon (€1.82 per liter). If you are running a fleet of trucks over thousands of miles, that is a huge loss, and you might consolidate and cut out less remunerative routes.
Likewise, airlines have cancelled tens of thousands of flights and ticket prices have risen, so some passengers are cancelling or postponing trips. Trucks deliver goods to retail stores, so prices of commodities have gone up, and some customers have put off buying things they don’t desperately need right now. If the retailer doesn’t sell a product, it doesn’t order more, so the trucks don’t roll as often. And if the goods aren’t selling, the factories scale back production, so they use less petroleum, too.
The IEA statistics suggest that the pain is greater for the poorer countries, which makes sense. The wealthy countries’ consumers are paying more and cutting back a bit. Those in the developing world are just going without, as I pointed out on Monday.
The IEA expected the world to produce 106.1 million barrels a day in 2026. It won’t. That projection has been revised down to 102.2 million barrels a day, a reduction of 3.9 million barrels a day. That is severe. But here is the catch. That is the reduction if “flows through the Strait gradually resume from June.” As Qasim al-Ali points out, that is an iffy bet as things now stand. So the shortfall in production will be bigger. Which will slow the world economy even more.
The agency observes, “With Hormuz tanker traffic still restricted, cumulative supply losses from Gulf producers already exceed 1 billion barrels with more than 14 mb/d of oil now shut in, an unprecedented supply shock.”
The shock hasn’t been as bad as it could have been so far, for several reasons. We just saw that there is enormous demand destruction, with the economic slowdown it implies. Also, there was a glut in the oil market going into the crisis, which takes some of the pressure off. The US, Europe, and China are drawing down their Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPRs) at an alarming rate. That move eases the pain in the short term. But low reserves imply a limited ability to deal with further supply shocks that may occur next year. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has signaled that he’d like to attack Iran again. So the big crisis may be next year this time, when there won’t be any SPR cushion.
Also, Strategic Petroleum Reserves are not infinite. China has enough for six months. At some point governments will become reluctant to draw them down any more, and then the interruption in supplies from the Gulf will hit all that much harder. The reserves held at oil hubs can’t go to zero, moreover. The inventory at Cushing, Oklahoma has fallen from 33 to 24.5 million barrels. But it can’t go lower than 20 million barrels without gumming up the pipelines and refineries.
Last week alone, US petroleum reserves fell by 10.6 million barrels, to the lowest level seen since 2004.
Global reserves of petroleum could fall so low by September, if the crisis is not resolved, that they will reach what analysts call “an operational floor.”
And when that happens, the shortages won’t be able to be finessed anymore, not by demand destruction and not by release of reserves.
And when we cross that threshold, oil shoots suddenly to $200 a barrel, which is an energy crisis apocalypse and spells deep gloom for the global and the US economy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Straight Face, Rubio Tells People of Cuba That US Oil Blockade Is Not Cause of Their Energy Crisis
"The administration will continue to claim that their actions serve the freedom of Cubans, but history has shown us that peace and democracy has never been realized through US imperialism or unilateral military intervention," said Rep. Delia Ramirez.
May 21, 2026
A five-minute address to the people of Cuba by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a longtime advocate of regime change in the communist country, was called "Orwellian" by one former Obama administration staffer as the diplomat claimed the "unimaginable hardships" Cubans now face are the fault of their own government—not the US blockade on oil that began nearly four months ago.
On the country's 124th Independence Day, Rubio—the son of Cuban immigrants who left the island for the US several years before Fidel Castro took power—said he wanted to "share with you the truth about the reason for your suffering. And I want to tell you what we, in the US, are offering to help you not only alleviate the current crisis, but also to build a better future."
Rolling blackouts have been a frequent occurrence since the Trump administration cut off Cuba's main oil supply after it invaded Venezuela in January, followed by a threat to impose tariffs on any country that supplied Cuba with energy. Rubio insisted that the blackouts are "not due to an oil 'blockade' by the US" and said that Cubans know "better than anyone" that the island has suffered from energy shortages "for years."
The secretary of state didn't mention the embargo the US has imposed on Cuba for more than six decades, exacerbating the country's struggles with its power infrastructure.
🇺🇸🇨🇺 pic.twitter.com/nwEePVJ1lX
— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) May 20, 2026
"The real reason you don’t have electricity, fuel, or food is because those who control your country have plundered billions of dollars, but nothing has been used to help the people," said Rubio—echoing comments he made in April about Iran's government, which he said has spent "billions of dollars, supporting terrorists or weapons," instead of "helping the people of Iran."
At the time, Rubio's accusations were ridiculed by progressives who noted the Trump administration had already spent billions of dollars on the Iran War as Americans struggled with rising grocery, healthcare, and gas prices.
On Wednesday, the Republican Party appeared to have adopted Rubio's recycled talking point as tensions with Cuba grew following the US government's indictment of former Cuban President Raúl Castro. On Fox News, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said Cuban officials "take all their money and they give it to the military and the police and themselves, and to hell with the good people."
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) said late Thursday that President Donald Trump and Rubio "are pulling straight from the imperialists' playbook to justify another unauthorized and unlawful military invasion–just as they did in Venezuela and Iran."
"The administration will continue to claim that their actions serve the freedom of Cubans, but history has shown us that peace and democracy has never been realized through US imperialism or unilateral military intervention," said Ramirez.
As Common Dreams reported Wednesday, Rubio also took aim at Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A. (GAESA), a company founded by Castro which controls an estimated 40-70% of Cuba's economy.
"President Trump is offering a new relationship between the US and Cuba. But it must be directly with you, the Cuban people, not with GAESA," said Rubio, adding that the administration is offering $100 million in food and medicine with the stipulation that it be distributed by the Catholic Church "or other trusted charitable groups."
"In the US we are ready to open a new chapter in the relationship between our people and our countries," said Rubio. "And, currently, the only thing standing in the way of a better future are those who control your country."
Ben Rhodes, who served as deputy national security adviser under former President Barack Obama, noted that the secretary of state "works for a guy who has looted far more billions of dollars for himself and his cronies than even the most corrupt Cuban officials," and condemned his claim that the US oil blockade is not behind Cuba's energy crisis, which has caused a healthcare crisis as hospitals have struggled to provide services.
Democrats on the US House Foreign Affairs Committee noted that as a senator, Rubio worked to "make every effort" to block Obama's push to normalize relations with Cuba—only to claim that he wants to forge a new path with the country after strangling its energy supply.
"Sen. Rubio made it his mission to block every serious effort to build a new relationship with the Cuban people," said the Democrats. "Now, as secretary of state, he's peddling disingenuous rhetoric of a ‘new relationship' while the administration's Cuba policies exacerbate the humanitarian crisis there."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular