President Trump said on July 8 that the United States might "take over" Kharg Island, Iran's main crude oil export terminal, after confirming overnight US military strikes on the facility. Speaking to reporters at the NATO summit in Türkiye, Trump announced the interim ceasefire with Iran was "over" and ordered the military to "hit them hard tonight" for a second consecutive night Al Jazeera.

The renewed strikes came after attacks on three tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, which the US attributed to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Trump claimed US operations had "knocked out 28 boats last night," though US Central Command reported the figure at more than 60 IRGC vessels hit in the same period Al Jazeera. The White House did not address this discrepancy at the summit.

Kharg Island sits about 55 kilometers off Iran's coast and handles roughly 90 percent of the country's crude oil exports — making it the single most critical point in Iran's oil economy Al Jazeera. Trump said he had personally instructed the military to avoid the oil infrastructure on the island — "Don't touch the oil, because maybe we'll take over Kharg Island" — which explains why overnight strikes reportedly bypassed export facilities Washington Examiner. He also floated reinstating a blockade of Iranian ports and warned, "There may be a big attack, and it'll knock out a lot of stuff" Times of Israel.

Trump referred to Iranian leadership as "scum" while announcing the ceasefire collapse, a marked shift from March when his administration said it was "in talks with Iran" New York Post; AP.

Trump first floated the Kharg Island seizure idea publicly on June 11 in a Fox News interview, then said the same day an attack was "off the table for now" Reuters; Reuters. He revived the threat later in June as his preferred option, and has now raised it a third time in a month Al Jazeera. This pattern of raising and retracting the threat suggests it may function as coercive messaging — signaling pressure to Iran — rather than a finalized military plan, though the actual strikes show the military option remains active.

On Truth Social, Trump outlined a broader rationale, writing that "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" Truth Social. He also claimed Iran's "Navy, Air Force, Radar, Anti Aircraft, and all other forms of Defense, together with most of its offensive capability, are GONE" — an assertion that lacks independent verification and remains contested rather than confirmed. An earlier Truth Social post from March strikes said the US had "obliterated" military assets on Kharg while deliberately sparing oil infrastructure "for reasons of decency," a framing that predates and foreshadows the current takeover language Truth Social; AP.

Trump has also noted the seizure "would have to be a joint effort," a caveat from March that has not been restated with clarity since — leaving unclear which allies, if any, Washington expects to participate in occupying and running the terminal AP.

What distinguishes a temporary military strike from an actual occupation matters greatly. Physically controlling a facility that exports nine-tenths of Iran's oil would place the US in direct management of Iran's primary source of foreign currency. This step carries implications for global crude markets, for international law governing occupation of foreign territory, and for how Gulf nations and China — Iran's largest oil buyer — react. Trump's language about "total control" of Iran's oil markets goes beyond seizing one facility; it signals a sustained US role administering Iranian energy exports, a proposition with few modern precedents outside formal occupation.

Whether Trump follows through with ground forces is distinct from the current air strikes. Strikes on IRGC vessels and military facilities fit within a pattern of long-distance engagement the US has used since March. Deploying forces to hold and operate the island would require sustained supply lines, acceptance of risk from irregular attack, and — by Trump's own March statement — likely coalition support that remains unspecified and not yet secured.