Yes
He should.
No
He shouldn’t.
President Donald Trump faces one of the most serious national-security questions of his presidency as tensions with Iran continue to place American troops, global energy supplies and the wider Middle East at risk.
One possible target discussed in connection with the conflict is Iran’s Kharg Island, a small island in the Persian Gulf that serves as the country’s primary oil-export center. Kharg is not literally Iran’s only oil-producing island, but it is an enormously important part of the nation’s petroleum infrastructure. Estimates indicate that roughly 90 percent of Iran’s crude-oil exports pass through its facilities.
Supporters of military action may argue that destroying or disabling the terminal would deprive Iran’s government of critical oil revenue. That money helps support the country’s military, weapons programs and regional operations. From this perspective, attacking the facility could weaken Tehran’s ability to finance threats against the United States, Israel and American allies.
Some may also believe that decisive action would demonstrate that attacks against American interests carry serious consequences. They could argue that limited strikes against strategic energy infrastructure are preferable to a longer ground war or repeated attacks against U.S. forces.
However, striking Kharg Island would carry major risks. Damage to such an important oil terminal could disrupt international energy markets, increase gasoline prices and affect consumers far beyond Iran. It could also provoke retaliation against U.S. military bases, commercial shipping, neighboring oil facilities or vessels traveling through the Persian Gulf.
The presence of workers and other civilians would raise additional concerns. Any attack would need to account for civilian casualties, environmental damage, international law and the possibility of a much broader war.
There is also a difference between temporarily disabling military-related infrastructure and completely destroying an island’s oil facilities. The language used in political debate can make military action sound simpler than it is. In reality, the consequences could affect American service members, families paying for gasoline, international trade and regional stability for years.
President Trump has emphasized strength and deterrence in dealing with hostile governments. His decision would require balancing the goal of weakening Iran against the danger of escalating an already volatile conflict.