Nournews: Continuing his previous positions, Donald Trump claimed that options, including controlling certain centers related to Iran’s oil exports, are on the table. In an interview with the Financial Times, he added that such an action would include seizing Kharg Island. Some news sources have also reported the deployment of tens of thousands of U.S. Marines to the West Asia region. Thus, while the narcissistic U.S. president speaks of the option of negotiating with Iran and claims to have active communication channels with Tehran, he simultaneously talks about territorial occupation. This duality in words and actions is one of the hallmarks of his inconsistency and instability in politics.
Putting aside this significant personal flaw, his claim of readiness to seize parts of Iranian territory must be firmly condemned and rejected. There is no doubt that any large-scale military maneuver in the Persian Gulf—regardless of the actor involved—has deep and possibly irreparable consequences for regional security and stability. The announcement of U.S. Marines being stationed near this sensitive waterway has once again revived a long-standing debate: how foreign military presence, particularly in large numbers, can stress the fragile regional security balance and steer developments toward a higher-risk environment.
The security architecture of the Persian Gulf has been built on a set of balances and unwritten red lines. The entry of military forces—especially foreign Marines and special operations troops—into this dense and sensitive environment severely disrupts this order. In such a situation, regional actors’ calculations become more complex and the level of mistrust rises. A long history of regional crises shows that even a small misperception in such a tense environment can escalate into a broader crisis. When it comes to military presence in key areas like islands, waterways, or shipping lanes, the issue is rarely limited to bilateral concerns. Such moves are usually viewed by rival powers as a “change in the status quo.” The result is that the field of geopolitical competition widens, and regional countries are inadvertently forced to choose between security blocs. This process intensifies the multipolarity of the Persian Gulf security environment and reduces the possibility of forming indigenous security arrangements.
The Persian Gulf is the world’s vital energy artery, and any sign of heavy militarization directly affects global oil and gas markets. Increased maritime transport risks, rising tanker insurance costs, and potential disruptions in energy export routes translate into profound global economic tensions. Accordingly, stability, security, and sustainability in this region are not just a security issue—they are an economic matter with cross-border implications.
A recurring pattern in regional crises is that a heavy foreign military presence activates non-state actors and armed groups. Power vacuums, security pressures, and disruption of local order create space for actors whose management is more difficult for governments. As a result, even if military presence initially aims at deterrence, in practice it may expand the number of armed actors and further complicate the security environment. Moreover, large-scale military actions usually trigger wide-ranging legal and political debates globally: from the legitimacy of the tools used to the effectiveness of multilateral institutions in crisis management. These developments gradually put pressure on the international order and may create new rifts among global powers. Such a situation prolongs crises and makes achieving lasting agreements more difficult.
Thus, with occupying forces present in the tense Persian Gulf region, and with assaults on territory by special operations or Marines, the region will face intensifying and escalating crises. The complexity of the situation along Iran’s coasts and islands will naturally peak if Iran’s territorial integrity is violated.
Even the slightest move toward what Trump has called the seizure of Kharg Island or any other part of Iran would immediately alter Iran’s military calculations for retaliation and reveal new and unimaginable dimensions of a regional war—one that would pose the greatest danger and damage to the hosts and allies of the invading Americans.
It is obvious that the least costly path for the U.S.-Zionist enemy is to avoid provoking Iran’s territory. The one-month experience of the recent war has shown that Iran’s defensive and security strategy against aggressors depends on the movements and attacks of its enemies, and Tehran calibrates its defensive and offensive measures according to the level of threats. Any act of aggression against Iran will be met with a decisive response of the same nature, but on a more crushing scale. Accordingly, any U.S. or Israeli plot to attack Iran’s islands or coasts will be met with a similar territorial response against countries that have hosted enemy bases.
With a strategy of escalating crises in the Persian Gulf security environment, the region will face a situation that not only affects the security of these waters but also profoundly impacts economic and political stability beyond its borders.