US President Donald Trump’s latest threat against Iran has once again raised the spectre of a conflict spiralling far beyond its current boundaries. On Sunday, Trump shared an AI-generated video on social media that purported to show Iran’s Kharg Island, one of the country’s most important oil-export hubs, being “blown to smithereens”. An Iranian official dismissed the video as laughable, pointing out that Kharg Island had not been attacked in the manner depicted. Yet there is little that is amusing about the threat itself. Kharg is not merely another military target. It is central to Iran’s energy exports, and any serious attack on the island could have profound consequences for the Iranian economy as well as global energy markets.
Before the current US-Israel war began on February 28, Kharg Island reportedly handled around 90 per cent of Iran’s oil exports. Its strategic importance therefore extends well beyond Iran’s borders. Repeated threats to seize or destroy the island, particularly at a time of heightened tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, suggest that Washington may be contemplating measures capable of inflicting enormous economic damage on Tehran. An attack on Kharg could disrupt Iran’s ability to export oil, intensify pressure on an already strained economy and potentially trigger another shock to international energy supplies.
The danger is that such an attack would not necessarily remain confined to Iran. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most strategically important energy routes, and any military escalation around it could have consequences for global trade, shipping and energy prices. A conflict that begins with an attack intended to weaken Iran economically could therefore quickly become a much broader confrontation involving multiple regional actors. This is precisely why threats against Kharg Island should not be dismissed as political rhetoric or social-media theatrics.
There are also indications that concerns about escalation extend into the US military establishment itself. According to reports in The Washington Post, senior American military commanders have warned Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth that sustaining large-scale operations against Iran could place excessive strain on US forces deployed around the world. The reported concerns involved the chiefs of the US Army, Navy and Air Force as well as commanders responsible for American forces in Europe, Asia and Latin America. Their objections were reportedly recorded through the formal process used to assess global US military deployments. Although the commanders indicated that they would carry out the orders they had been given, their concerns highlight the growing burden that an expanded Iran campaign could place on American military resources.
That distinction is important. A military leadership that believes an operation is strategically or operationally unsustainable may still be required to execute presidential orders. In the American system, the president is commander-in-chief, meaning that senior officers cannot simply overrule the White House. The reported reservations therefore point to a potentially dangerous gap between political ambition and military prudence. If Washington continues expanding the conflict despite warnings from its own commanders, the risks could become increasingly difficult to contain.
The international community has already witnessed how quickly military escalation can create consequences that were never part of the original calculations. Iran and the United States have both suffered from the conflict, while neighbouring countries remain vulnerable to spillover. The longer the war continues, the greater the possibility that another strike, another retaliation or another miscalculation could open an entirely new front.
Iranian leaders, meanwhile, continue to signal that there is a diplomatic alternative. President Masoud Pezeshkian has said that Iran does not seek war and has accused forces in the United States of wanting the conflict to continue. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has similarly argued that Washington failed to honour its commitments and has blamed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for drawing the United States into a confrontation with Iran. Tehran’s claims must, of course, be assessed against the broader political and military context, but they nevertheless indicate that Iran’s leadership is still attempting to keep open the possibility of negotiations.
This is particularly significant because the war erupted while diplomatic contacts between Washington and Tehran were still underway. Iran now says it wants to reopen the diplomatic channel despite what it describes as a US violation of the Islamabad memorandum of understanding. At the same time, however, voices within Iran’s security establishment have taken a harder line. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has argued that the US violated the UN Charter and that Iran was therefore compelled to retaliate. It has also warned that continued attacks would provoke an even harsher Iranian response.
This divergence within Iran should be understood as another reason for Washington to pursue diplomacy rather than further escalation. Continued military pressure may strengthen those arguing that negotiations are futile and that only military resistance can protect Iranian interests. Conversely, a credible diplomatic initiative could provide political space for moderates and negotiators on both sides to prevent the conflict from becoming permanent.
The central question now is whether Trump wants to end the conflict or expand it. If the objective is genuinely to secure American and regional interests, threatening Kharg Island is an exceptionally dangerous strategy. Destroying a critical component of Iran’s oil infrastructure could inflict enormous economic damage, but it could also provoke retaliation against American interests, regional allies and international shipping. The resulting chain reaction could draw more countries into the conflict and make a negotiated settlement considerably harder to achieve.
There is still time to prevent that outcome. Diplomacy will undoubtedly be difficult after the destruction, deaths and accusations of betrayal that have accompanied the conflict. Trust has been badly damaged, and neither Washington nor Tehran can simply return to the position they occupied before the war. But diplomacy does not require trust at the outset; it requires the recognition that the alternative is worse.
The United States must therefore resist the temptation to turn military superiority into an open-ended campaign. Iran must also recognise that continued escalation carries enormous risks for its own population and economy. Both sides have reasons to negotiate, even if neither is willing to acknowledge them publicly.
The world cannot afford another regional war in which each round of retaliation creates the justification for the next. An attack on Kharg Island could become the point at which the present conflict crosses a dangerous threshold. Trump still has a choice: pursue an uncertain but possible diplomatic settlement, or continue down a military path whose consequences may ultimately be impossible to control. The former may be difficult. The latter could prove catastrophic.
Shafaqna Pakistan
pakistan.shafaqna.com
Note: Shafaqna do not endorse the views expressed in the article
