Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) expressed his support Thursday for President Trump's threat to seize Iran's Kharg Island, calling it a potential turning point in U.S.-Iran relations.
Kharg Island is critical infrastructure for Iran, handling approximately 90 percent of the country's crude oil exports. Trump outlined the plan in a Truth Social post Thursday morning, suggesting the U.S. would take control of Iranian oil infrastructure.
"At some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets," Trump wrote, comparing it to Venezuelan arrangements that he said were "working out brilliantly."
In a Fox News interview following his Truth Social post, Trump indicated the U.S. military would launch attacks larger than recent operations, stating the country had already "dropped $250 million worth of bombs."
"They're really in submission. They just don't know it yet," the president told the outlet.
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic lawmakers and foreign policy experts have raised concerns about the constitutional implications of unilateral military action against Iranian infrastructure without congressional authorization.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has argued for diplomatic channels before considering military escalation. "Military strikes without a clear strategic objective and congressional approval set dangerous precedents," Murphy wrote in recent social media posts.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) noted that war powers authority rests with Congress under Article I of the Constitution. "The president cannot simply decide to seize another nation's critical infrastructure, even during heightened tensions," Khanna stated in committee testimony last year.
Progressive advocacy groups including MoveOn and CodePink have organized opposition to military escalation, arguing that controlling Iranian oil infrastructure would constitute an act of war requiring full congressional debate.
"Seizing another country's energy infrastructure by force would be a dramatic escalation with unknown consequences for global markets and regional stability," said Win Without War Executive Director Sara Haimovich in a statement.
What the Right Is Saying
Graham and other Republicans have framed Trump's approach as necessary pressure to compel Iranian compliance with nuclear agreements and halt support for proxy groups.
"President Trump's announcement today that it may be time to take Kharg Island is welcome news and would be the ultimate game changer," Graham wrote Thursday. "The combination of continuing to force the Strait open and at the same time controlling Kharg Island's operations by force or blockade would be the most consequential move President Trump could make, regaining the dominance and leverage America needs."
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) echoed support for aggressive action: "Iran has ignored diplomatic overtures for decades. Maximum pressure is the only language the regime understands."
Conservative commentators have praised the administration's stance as restoring American credibility in the Middle East. The Heritage Foundation's foreign policy team argued that controlling Kharg Island would provide leverage to negotiate a comprehensive nuclear deal on favorable terms.
"If there is no deal soon Mr. President, you are right to put on the table the taking of Kharg Island," Graham continued. "I very much appreciate @POTUS and his team going the extra mile to obtain a diplomatic solution."
What the Numbers Show
Iran exported approximately 1.5 million barrels of crude oil per day in recent months, with roughly 90 percent flowing through facilities on Kharg Island, according to Energy Information Administration data.
The U.S. has spent an estimated $2 billion on military operations in the Middle East this fiscal year, including recent strikes that Pentagon officials valued at approximately $250 million each.
Iran's oil revenue constitutes approximately 30 percent of government budget income and represents a significant portion of foreign currency reserves for the Islamic Republic.
Global oil markets have shown volatility following reports of potential U.S. action against Iranian infrastructure, with Brent crude futures fluctuating between $78 and $84 per barrel this week.
The Bottom Line
The debate over Kharg Island reflects deeper tensions about presidential war powers and U.S. strategy toward Iran. Congressional Democrats are likely to push for formal debate on any military action targeting Iranian territory, citing constitutional requirements under the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973.
International law experts note that seizing another nation's critical infrastructure would likely require justification under self-defense provisions of the UN Charter or specific congressional authorization under the 1973 War Powers Act. The administration has not yet specified which legal framework it would invoke.
What happens next: Congress returns to session Monday with several members calling for a classified briefing on Iran policy. Markets will be watching for any escalation in military operations, as oil prices remain sensitive to supply disruption risks.