In an exclusive and remarkably blunt interview with The Financial Times on Monday, March 30, 2026, President Donald Trump doubled down on his proposal to militarily seize Iran’s primary oil infrastructure. While confirming that “taking the oil” is his preferred strategy to end the month-long conflict, the President took aim at domestic critics and political opponents who have questioned the legality and regional consequences of such an escalation.
The “Preference” for Oil Seizure
The President’s comments center on Kharg Island, the terminal that handles roughly 90% of Iran’s crude exports. With U.S. troop levels in the Middle East now exceeding 50,000, the Pentagon has reportedly presented the White House with multiple “contingency options” for a ground and naval assault on the island.
“To be honest with you, my favourite thing is to take the oil in Iran,” Trump told the FT. “But some stupid people back in the US say, ‘Why are you doing that?’ But they’re stupid people.”
Dismissing the “Legalistic” Critique
The “stupid people” the President referred to likely include a growing coalition of Congressional Democrats and some moderate Republicans who have raised concerns about the War Powers Act and international law.
- The Sovereign Argument: Critics argue that seizing Kharg Island would constitute a formal annexation of sovereign Iranian territory, potentially triggering a wider regional conflagration and making a long-term “exit strategy” impossible.
- The Economic Risk: Domestic energy analysts have warned that while “taking the oil” might bankrupt the Iranian administration, the immediate fallout could push global oil prices—already at $118 per barrel—into a territory that triggers a global recession.
- Trump’s Rebuttal: The President dismissed these concerns as “weakness,” arguing that control of the oil is the only “real leverage” the U.S. has to ensure Tehran complies with his 15-point peace plan.
“No Defense”: The Military Assessment
President Trump reiterated his belief that the operation would face minimal resistance following weeks of U.S.-Israeli “infrastructure waves” that have degraded Iran’s coastal defenses.
“I don’t think they have any defense. We could take it very easily,” he asserted.
This assessment comes despite the IRGC Aerospace Force launching a retaliatory campaign that recently claimed the life of an Indian worker at a Kuwaiti desalination plant and reportedly destroyed a U.S. E-3 AWACS in Saudi Arabia.
The Contrast: “Islamabad Track” vs. “Take the Oil”
The President’s rhetoric creates a striking “good cop, bad cop” dynamic with the ongoing diplomatic efforts in Pakistan:
- The Diplomatic Path: Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar is currently facilitating indirect talks, noting that Iran has already allowed 20 Pakistani-flagged ships through the Strait of Hormuz as a sign of goodwill.
- The Military Path: Trump’s threat to “take the oil” serves as the ultimate “or else” if the Islamabad Track fails to deliver “everything we want” within the President’s unspecified timeline.
| Stakeholder | Position on Kharg Island Seizure | Primary Concern |
| Pres. Trump | Strongly Favors | Financial decapitation of the “Third Regime.” |
| Domestic Critics | Opposed | Legal overreach; Risk of “forever war.” |
| Wall Street | Anxious | Market volatility; Oil price “super-spike.” |
| Tehran (IRGC) | Defiant | Vows “historic lesson” and residential retaliation. |
Political Fallout in Washington
The President’s comments have already ignited a firestorm on Capitol Hill. While some supporters in the “America First” caucus have praised the “boldness” of the plan to make the war “pay for itself,” others have cautioned that the term “stupid people” may further alienate the 61% of Americans who, according to recent polls, are wary of a prolonged ground entanglement in the Middle East.
