Trump Team Weighs Kharg Island Seizure and Iran Ground War, Raising Hormuz Escalation Risk
Senior U.S. officials have discussed options that include seizing Iran’s main oil terminal at Kharg Island, bombing a hardened nuclear site and even deploying ground forces, according to people briefed on the talks. A move from airstrikes to territorial seizures would turn the fight over the Strait of Hormuz into a confrontation that pulls in oil markets, Gulf allies and global shipping insurers.
In Washington, the debate over how far to push Iran is no longer theoretical. According to people briefed on internal deliberations, former President Donald Trump has recently considered options that include seizing Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export hub, bombing an underground nuclear facility and potentially deploying U.S. ground forces into Iran.
The discussions reportedly took place on Tuesday in the White House Situation Room, where three major escalation paths were laid out. One involved a seizure of Kharg Island in the northern Persian Gulf, through which the bulk of Iran’s crude exports traditionally move. Another focused on air and potentially bunker-busting strikes on a hardened nuclear site in the mountains—described as Mount P in the account of the meeting. The third scenario went further, keeping open the possibility of limited ground operations inside Iran.
No decision has been announced, and there is no confirmation that operational orders have been issued for any of the options described. But the fact that Kharg Island and ground-force deployments are being considered at the highest levels marks a shift from a campaign of stand-off strikes toward ideas that would require sustained logistics, clear rules of engagement and an acceptance of higher U.S. casualties and hostage risk.
For U.S. service members already deployed across bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and elsewhere in the region, the stakes are immediate. Any move to seize a piece of Iranian territory or hit core nuclear infrastructure would all but guarantee retaliation against forward-deployed troops, airfields and logistics hubs. Civilians living near those bases, as well as commercial shipping crews moving through the Gulf under the shadow of the current U.S. maritime blockade, would find themselves closer to the blast radius of decisions made in Washington.
The strategic implications around Kharg Island are stark. Turning Iran’s primary oil export center into contested ground would not simply constrain Tehran’s revenues; it would effectively transfer a crucial node of the global oil system into a military objective. Energy buyers in Asia and Europe, already watching disruptions and threats in the Strait of Hormuz, would have to price in the risk that a central outlet for Iranian crude becomes a battlefield, with all the secondary effects on pricing power for other Gulf producers.
Inside the region, Gulf monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar would face a sharper dilemma. Publicly aligning with a U.S. operation that seizes Iranian territory could draw them deeper into Iran’s retaliation calculus, making their own oil terminals, desalination plants and financial centers more attractive targets. Remaining on the sidelines, however, would test their security relationships with Washington at the very moment when U.S. forces are actively contesting control over critical sea lanes.
The nuclear option under review—bombing an underground site—carries its own layer of risk. Even a limited strike on a hardened facility could push Iran’s leadership to accelerate aspects of its nuclear program in response, while hardening domestic support against outside pressure. The line between coercive signaling and a conflict over regime survival is thin when military plans cross from the Gulf shoreline into the country’s strategic heartland.
The memorable lesson in the choices now being discussed is simple: once territory and nuclear sites are on the target list, the conflict stops being about individual strikes and becomes about war termination—how it ends, not just how it is fought. That is the threshold these reported options are approaching.
The next signals to watch will be movements of U.S. naval and amphibious assets toward the northern Gulf, any visible preparations for large-scale noncombatant evacuation from regional bases, and changes in the public messaging from Washington and key Gulf capitals. If planners start rehearsing or openly discussing the legal basis for seizing foreign territory, it will be a sign that the most far-reaching options from Tuesday’s meeting are moving from the whiteboard toward execution.
Sources
- OSINT