Recent social media posts attributed to former US President Donald Trump have ignited fresh debate regarding Washington's long-term strategy in the Persian Gulf. Trump asserted he had ordered a covert US military operation to safeguard oil tankers and commercial shipping through the critical Strait of Hormuz. He claimed this effort facilitated the safe passage of over 100 million barrels of oil and more than 200 commercial vessels through the strategic waterway.
In a related message, Trump suggested that following any crippling of Iran's military capabilities, the United States could potentially seize Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export terminal, and assume full control of the nation's oil and gas markets. These remarks, referencing a secret operation in Hormuz, raise questions about whether the administration is signaling a broader doctrine focused on controlling energy flows and maritime security, extending beyond Iran's nuclear program.
A Consistent 'America First' Vision
According to policy strategists analyzing Trump's posts, his rhetoric is not a sudden response to current tensions but rather a consistent articulation of an idea he has championed for nearly four decades. This core belief posits that if the United States expends significant resources protecting global trade routes, it should receive a direct economic benefit in return.
The intellectual origins of Trump's current messaging can be traced back to 1987. As a businessman, he published full-page advertisements in major American newspapers, questioning why the US bore the cost of securing Persian Gulf oil routes that primarily benefited allies like Japan and Saudi Arabia. His argument was unequivocal: America should not shoulder the burden of defending shipping lanes unless allies contribute more or the US gains tangible compensation.
During a 1987 television interview with Barbara Walters, Trump expanded on this concept amid the Iran-Iraq “Tanker War.” When challenged on his aggressive stance, he reportedly stated that if Iran attacked American interests, Washington should “grab one of their big oil installations and keep it,” and questioned why the US was spending billions protecting shipping without compensation.
The Strategic Importance of Hormuz and Kharg Island
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most vital energy chokepoints, with approximately one-fifth of global oil consumption passing through this narrow corridor. Any disruption there can trigger dramatic increases in energy prices and destabilize financial markets worldwide. By highlighting a purported covert operation to escort tankers and facilitate oil shipments, Trump appears to frame the US military not just as a security provider, but as the ultimate guarantor of global energy stability.
His assertion that “the United States of America controls the Strait of Hormuz — not Iran” aligns squarely with a narrative that maritime dominance is both a strategic asset and a powerful bargaining chip. It also reinforces his longstanding complaint that Washington’s allies have disproportionately benefited from US military protection without adequate contribution.
Trump’s reference to Kharg Island is particularly significant. Located in the northern Persian Gulf, the island handles the vast majority of Iran’s crude oil exports and represents one of the country’s most strategically important energy infrastructures. A threat to Kharg Island would carry immense geopolitical and economic consequences, potentially disrupting Iranian export revenues and impacting global oil markets. Trump’s suggestion that the US could one day “assume total control” over Iran’s oil and gas markets echoes his decades-old belief that economic assets should be leveraged to offset the cost of military intervention.
Transactional Foreign Policy
Foreign policy scholars have often characterized Trump’s worldview as transactional rather than ideological. Research by figures like Brookings Institution scholar Thomas Wright highlights a consistent pattern in Trump’s thinking since the late 1980s: allies should pay for US protection, military power should yield measurable returns, and strategic resources can be used as leverage against adversaries.
Through this lens, the recent social media posts are less about unveiling a new doctrine and more about reviving a deeply entrenched one. The “America First” approach, in this interpretation, not only seeks to reduce foreign commitments but also to ensure that any American deployment generates a concrete economic or strategic dividend. Whether these comments represent an actual policy blueprint or primarily political messaging remains a subject of ongoing interpretation.