Lead
Former US president Donald Trump told the Financial Times on Sunday he favors seizing Iranian oil and said US forces could take Kharg Island “easily,” comments that come as thousands of US troops deploy to the Middle East amid a widening Iran war. The conflict began after an initial strike on 28 February killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and has since escalated with Israeli attacks on Iranian sites, Houthi involvement and sharp market reactions. Reports also say Mr Trump is weighing a mission to extract roughly 1,000 pounds (454 kg) of uranium from Iran, a plan described in the Wall Street Journal as still under consideration. Meanwhile, Pakistan is preparing to host regional talks aimed at de-escalation, though attendance by Washington and Tehran remains unclear.
Key takeaways
- Donald Trump told the Financial Times he would like to “take the oil” in Iran and suggested Kharg Island could be seized, raising risks of a broader military campaign.
- The Wall Street Journal reported the US is weighing an operation to remove about 1,000 pounds (454 kg) of uranium from Iran; US officials described the plan as under consideration and not yet approved.
- Brent crude rose above $116 a barrel after the war expanded, up from roughly $70 a barrel before the conflict — an increase of over 50%.
- Stock markets plunged across Asia: Japan’s Nikkei fell 4.7% early Monday, extending March losses to nearly 14%, while South Korea and multiple regional exchanges also posted sharp declines.
- The Israeli military reported strikes on Iranian regime sites across Tehran; Iran’s heavy-water plant at Khondab was reported by the IAEA to have sustained severe damage and contain no declared nuclear material.
- Yemen’s Houthi forces have engaged in the conflict, raising the prospect of Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab disruptions to global shipping and energy supplies.
- The UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon (UNIFIL) reported one peacekeeper killed and another critically injured near Adchit al-Qusayr.
- Pakistan is organizing regional diplomacy with foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt to seek de-escalation and potential US–Iran discussions in Islamabad.
Background
The current confrontation traces back to an initial airstrike on 28 February that killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with close family members; his son Mojtaba was named as his successor. That strike set off a month-long war involving Iran, Israel and the US-backed coalition of forces, with regional proxies and non-state actors becoming involved. Tehran’s retaliation and the joining of Tehran-aligned groups have progressively enlarged the conflict footprint.
Maritime choke points have become strategic pressure points: Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz earlier in the war and the Houthis’ capability to threaten Bab al-Mandab endanger major oil and container shipping routes. Disruptions to these waterways have immediate global economic consequences because a significant share of seaborne oil and goods transits through them.
Energy-importing nations and regional partners have scrambled responses. Some Asian fuel suppliers have signaled shifts in export policy to secure domestic supplies, and governments from Pakistan to Egypt are juggling domestic energy shortages, civilian impacts and diplomatic channels to limit escalation.
Main event
In a Financial Times interview published Sunday, Donald Trump said his “preference would be to take the oil” in Iran and suggested Kharg Island, which funnels most of Iran’s crude exports, could be seized by US forces. He framed the idea as one among many options while describing perceived openness to negotiations through intermediaries in Pakistan. The FT report quoted Trump as likening a potential outcome to US intentions in Venezuela after its January regime change there.
Separately, the Wall Street Journal reported that US planners are discussing a mission to recover almost 1,000 pounds (454 kg) of uranium from Iran. Officials cited in that piece said the operation would likely require US forces to remain inside Iran for days and could put troops at heightened risk. White House and Pentagon spokespeople declined to confirm a decision, saying planning does not equal presidential approval.
On the battlefield, Israeli forces said they have been striking regime infrastructure across Tehran, while Iran and allied groups have engaged in missile and drone exchanges with Israel and Gulf states. The IAEA publicly reported that the Khondab heavy-water facility sustained severe damage in an Israeli strike and stated the reactor contained no declared nuclear material, a technical distinction that does not eliminate broader proliferation concerns.
Economic fallout was immediate: Brent crude surged above $116 per barrel, equities slid across Asia, and logistics disruptions compounded inflation fears. Seoul, Tokyo and other markets recorded multi-percent drops, reflecting investor concern about prolonged conflict and higher energy costs.
Analysis & implications
A US seizure of Iranian oil infrastructure would be unprecedented in scale and legality. Seizing Kharg Island — Iran’s principal export terminal — would require a large, sustained amphibious and air campaign to secure terminals, pipelines and surrounding waters. Such an operation would markedly increase US exposure to asymmetric retaliation from Iran and allied proxies, amplifying chances of casualties, supply-chain attacks and international diplomatic fallout.
From a legal and political perspective, forcibly taking another state’s oil raises questions under international law and would likely alienate many partners, complicating coalition-building and post-conflict governance. Even if militarily feasible, occupation or control of production and export facilities demands long-term administrative and security commitments that historically have high political and financial costs.
Economically, further disruptions to Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab would deepen global energy shortages and push commodity prices higher, feeding inflation. That dynamic could force central banks into tighter policy stances, risking growth slowdowns or recession in import-dependent economies. Secondary effects include rerouted shipping, higher insurance and freight costs, and potential shortages of petrochemical feedstocks.
Diplomatically, Pakistan’s offer to host indirect talks presents a narrow pathway toward de-escalation, but success depends on credible commitments from Washington and Tehran and on limiting spoilers such as Israel and militant proxies. Confidence-building measures and third-party guarantees would be needed to translate talks into durable pauses or a roadmap for de-escalation.
Comparison & data
| Metric | Before war | Current |
|---|---|---|
| Brent crude (per barrel) | ~$70 | >$116 |
| Price change | — | >50% increase |
| Japan Nikkei (March losses) | — | ~14% decline month-to-date |
| Reported uranium weight discussed | — | ~1,000 lb (454 kg) |
The table compares a small set of market and operational figures cited in recent reporting. Brent’s rise from approximately $70 to above $116 represents market fears of extended supply constraints. Equity declines in Asia reflect immediate risk-off positioning by investors, while the WSJ’s figure for uranium — if acted upon — would indicate a complex, prolonged operation with substantial logistic demands.
Reactions & quotes
Official and public responses have been swift and varied. Pakistani officials have framed Islamabad’s diplomatic role as a chance for talks; Israeli leaders have announced expanded operations in Lebanon; and international agencies have emphasized the humanitarian and legal consequences of further escalation.
“To be honest with you, my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran,”
Donald Trump, quoted in Financial Times
Trump’s remark, relayed by the FT, crystallized a strategy discussion that mixes coercive leverage with claims of deterrence. Critics argue such language raises the risk of normalization of resource seizure as policy, while supporters frame it as realpolitik aimed at denying Iran funds for military activity.
“We are preparing to host meaningful talks”
Ishaq Dar, Pakistani foreign minister (reported)
Pakistan’s public positioning is an attempt to open channels for de-escalation; whether Washington and Tehran will engage directly remains an open question. Diplomats from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt attended Islamabad discussions intended to explore steps toward a ceasefire or scaling down operations.
“The Khondab plant sustained severe damage and contains no declared nuclear material,”
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
The IAEA statement clarifies the technical inventory at Khondab but does not resolve wider proliferation concerns raised by attacks on nuclear-adjacent infrastructure.
Unconfirmed
- The Wall Street Journal’s report that a US operation to extract about 1,000 lb (454 kg) of uranium from Iran is under serious final approval remains unverified by Pentagon or White House confirmation.
- Reports that Pakistani-hosted talks will include direct US and Iranian delegations are not yet confirmed; Islamabad described preparations but neither Washington nor Tehran publicly committed to attendance.
- Details about the current public visibility and condition of Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, are incomplete; official Iranian reports have not provided full public appearances or statements.
Bottom line
The war that began with the 28 February strike has evolved into a multi-front crisis with strategic, legal and economic consequences. A US move to seize Iranian oil infrastructure would dramatically expand American commitments and likely provoke stronger asymmetric responses across the region, including attacks on shipping and energy facilities.
Economically, sustained disruptions to Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab threaten global energy supplies and inflation, with immediate market reactions already visible in oil and equities. Diplomacy via Pakistan offers a narrow but necessary path to reducing hostilities; success will require credible guarantees, limited territorial ambitions and third-party enforcement mechanisms.
For now, facts and credible reporting should guide public assessment: some plans remain under consideration and unconfirmed, markets are reacting to heightened risk, and the human cost — including the reported UN peacekeeper death — underscores the urgency of de-escalation.
Sources
- The Guardian — live coverage (news)
- Financial Times (news; FT interview cited)
- Wall Street Journal (news; report on uranium operation)
- Reuters (news)
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (official agency)
- United Nations / UNIFIL (official; peacekeeping updates)
- Agence France-Presse (AFP) (news)