President Donald Trump backed off a threat to hit Iran “VERY HARD,” saying on social media Thursday afternoon that the strikes had been cancelled. The post followed an earlier one in which Trump said the U.S. could move to “assume total control” of Iran’s oil and gas industries, including the strategic Kharg Island export terminal in the “not too distant future.”
Trump’s threat came as U.S. and Iranian forces traded strikes for a second consecutive day, pushing the Middle East closer to a broader regional war. It marked the third major exchange of hostilities this week, following attacks between Iran and Israel and then rounds of fire between the U.S. and Iran that have spread across countries hosting U.S. military bases. In announcing the canceled strikes, Trump said the negotiations were nearing a deal — something he’s claimed often in the months since the war began.
The potential escalation with Kharg Island signals that the fighting could be entering a particularly dangerous period, with diplomatic efforts appearing strained on both sides. Trump warned Iran would “pay the price” for the stalled negotiations, while Iran accused Washington this week of rendering a ceasefire meaningless through continued military action.Trump appeared on Fox News on Thursday morning and denied he was frustrated at the impasse but did appear to be annoyed by how the conflict was being perceived.
“The problem is it could be the greatest deal in history,” Trump said. “They could wave the white flag of surrender and say ‘Praise be to Allah’ … and the fake news would say, ‘It was a great victory for Iran.’ It’s the craziest thing I’ve ever seen. We’re killing them. We’re killing them."Trump’s post split Republicans and triggered warnings from Democrats about the dangers of such an operation, both to U.S. troops and to the global economy.
Trending
Taking Kharg Island “would be a very difficult operation,” said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. It would likely require ground troops — a step the military has planned for, but Trump has so far been reluctant to take.
“They’ve been preparing for that for a while,” said Reed. “One of the reasons is that we have significant casualties going ashore. The island is within range of all of [Iran’s] shore batteries, so while you take the island, they’d keep shelling you. You’d have forces going ashore, not just losing people but under a constant or at least frequent barrage.”
But Republicans more oriented toward foreign policy restraint squirmed at Trump’s threat, and the potential use of ground troops.
“I have not favored ground troops, I never have,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri). “But you know, the president reminding the Iranians as to what we could do — I mean, we certainly could. Will we? I have no idea.”
Attacking Iran’s oil infrastructure could also provoke Iranian attacks on the oil infrastructure of neighboring countries, spiking fuel prices and deepening the global economic crisis.
“If you think we have high gas prices today, when that happens, you’re going to see, you’re going to see a gallon of gas way north of five bucks a gallon,” said Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Arizona).
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) warned that Trump would be making “a big mistake” if he moved to take Kharg Island.
“We should be exiting this war, not deepening the war,” Kaine said.
Hawkish Republicans have for weeks been calling for Trump to take more decisive military action and welcomed his new rhetoric. Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker backed Trump’s threat to escalate against Iran.
“I support the president becoming much, much more aggressive,” the Mississippi Republican said when asked about Kharg Island.
Asked whether he supports ground troops, Wicker said: “I don’t think that would be necessary.”
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota) said Trump has shown restraint by not targeting Kharg Island, but warned that the Iranian oil hub remains one of the clearest ways to cripple Tehran’s economy.
“We’ve always known that one of our options was to go after their Achilles’ heel, which is Kharg Island,” Rounds said. “No. 1 because it is the lifeblood to their economy, and No. 2 because we know that one of the options would require boots on the ground.”
Rounds said Trump “may or may not decide to go that route,” but argued the threat alone should pressure Iran to back down.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said Thursday that it struck 18 U.S. military targets in the region, including facilities in Kuwait and Bahrain, describing the attacks as retaliation for U.S. strikes on Iranian military and security facilities.
At the United Nations, Iran’s ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, urged Trump to refrain from his recurring threats against Iran, saying no lasting agreement could be achieved through intimidation or force. He warned that Tehran would continue to exercise what it called its right of self-defense and said the U.S. would bear responsibility for further escalation.Trump’s threat to take control of Iranian oil and gas operations represents a dramatic expansion of Washington’s rhetoric. Kharg Island handles the vast majority of Iran’s crude oil exports, making it a critical economic asset.The U.S. military continued to enforce its blockade of Iranian ports, disabling a Guinea-Bissau-flagged oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman on Wednesday. U.S. Central Command says it has disabled nine non-compliant vessels, redirected 135 ships that complied, and allowed 42 vessels supporting humanitarian aid to pass since initiating the blockade on April 13.
Trump’s latest announcement suggests the back-and-forth attacks are not over even after U.S. Central Command announced Wednesday that it had “completed” what it called self-defense strikes against multiple targets in Iran “at the Commander in Chief’s direction.”
Those strikes included Iranian military surveillance capabilities, communication systems and air defense sites that “posed a threat to U.S. forces and international commercial ships transiting regional waters.”
This story was updated with Trump saying planned strikes had been canceled and lawmaker reaction to the president’s threats of escalation.
Authors
