The United States and Israel say the escalation of military attacks against Iran concerns nuclear proliferation, deterrence and regional security. But recent developments suggest a different, older logic is at work. The deeper purpose is not simply to weaken Iran or force regime change. It protects the liquidity of oil, the lifeblood of the global capitalist economy.
Consider the recent US attack on Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export terminal. The island is located just off the coast of the Gulf near the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil passes each day. Any disruption there would quickly impact the entire global energy market. Recent reports highlight how sensitive oil prices are to the threat of Strait disruption.
But the most telling feature of the Kharg Island attack is not just that it happened, but what was deliberately avoided.
US President Donald Trump publicly celebrated the operation, declaring that US forces had destroyed “all military targets” on the island. At the same time, he stressed that the oil infrastructure itself remains untouched. Writing in Truth Social, President Trump said he had chosen not to “wipe out the island’s oil infrastructure” and warned that those restraints could change if Iran threatens shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
The difference is obvious. Kharg Island handles most of Iran’s crude oil exports. Destruction of the oil terminal would likely dramatically disrupt global supplies and send prices soaring. Instead, Washington opted for a coordinated attack, a military casualty without energy paralysis.
This implication is difficult to ignore. The United States is prepared to weaken Iran militarily, but continues to invest heavily in keeping oil flowing to support the global economy.
Energy security has long structured U.S. strategy in the Gulf. Washington has treated Gulf energy infrastructure as a strategic priority since the 1980 Carter Doctrine, which declared the region’s oil supplies to be a vital US interest. The possibility that Iran restricts shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains one of the most volatile risks to the global economy.
Seen from this perspective, the attack on Kharg seems more like a signal than a step toward full-scale war. Iran’s military might be targeted, but the oil infrastructure that supports the global economy remains a protected asset.
Taken individually, the Kharg strike could be interpreted as escalation management. But when juxtaposed with Washington’s actions across multiple domains, a more coherent logic emerges.
This logic becomes clearer when juxtaposed with other recent moves by the Trump administration. In Venezuela, for example, Washington is escalating its conflict with President Nicolas Maduro. Although U.S. officials frame the pressure campaign in terms of democracy and corruption, Venezuela also happens to have the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Control over Venezuela’s political future is therefore inseparable from control over where and how oil is produced and sold.
A more pro-American government in Caracas could pivot Venezuela’s oil industry toward Western markets and investment. In this sense, this conflict is not only ideological but also deeply material. Indeed, analysts note that the U.S. government has long sought to reorganize Venezuela’s oil sector in a way that more closely aligns with U.S. economic interests.
The same logic can be seen in Washington’s changing stance on Russian oil. Even as the United States continues to portray Moscow as a strategic adversary, U.S. policymakers recently eased certain restrictions affecting Russian crude oil exports in an effort to stabilize global energy markets and prevent price spikes. Even confrontations with strategic adversaries are recalibrated when oil flows are compromised. The move underscores the broader reality that geopolitical rivalries often supersede the overriding challenge of keeping energy flows stable. Whether the source is Russia, Venezuela, or the Persian Gulf, the priority is the same: to keep oil flowing and the global economy running.
This pattern extends beyond oil itself.
The same obligation now extends beyond oil to the critical minerals that will underpin future energy and technology systems. President Trump has repeatedly revived the idea of acquiring Greenland, which is thought to have vast reserves of rare earth minerals and potentially significant energy resources under the Arctic Ocean. In a world defined by technological competition and the energy transition, these resources are becoming increasingly valuable.
Similarly, the U.S. government has aggressively promoted access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals, which are essential for advanced electronics, renewable energy technology, and military systems. These minerals have become a central strategic concern for major powers seeking to secure supply chains for critical industries.
What these examples reveal is a consistent effort to ensure control of the resources and infrastructure that underpins the global economy. Taken together, these moves indicate a coherent geopolitical strategy. Trump’s foreign policy appears increasingly to be shaped by so-called extractive imperialism, an effort to secure control of the resources that power global capitalism.
Oil remains central to this system. Despite decades of discussion about the transition to renewable energy, hydrocarbons still dominate the world’s energy supply. Global trade, transportation, and industry remain highly dependent on steady flows of crude oil and natural gas.
The infrastructure that enables the movement of oil (pipelines, export terminals, transportation routes, refineries) has become one of the most strategically protected elements of the global economy.
The Kharg Island strike illustrates this dynamic with unusual clarity. Military assets were fair. Oil infrastructure was not. The violence was carefully calibrated so as not to disrupt the energy cycles on which the global economy depends.
The war with Iran is often framed as a contest over nuclear weapons and regional influence. Such concerns are certainly important. But underlying this lies a more fundamental geopolitical objective: the preservation of the energy arteries that sustain the global economic order.
What is at stake is not just conflict between nations, but the management of a world system that cannot tolerate interruptions to its own energy lifelines.
Oil has long structured the geopolitics of the Middle East. The Kharg Island episode shows that this is still the case. Underlying the rhetoric of deterrence and security lies the familiar imperialist imperative to keep oil moving.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
