Via Reuters:
- Trump says US could ‘take the oil in Iran’ – FT
- Trump says US could seize the export hub of Kharg Island – FT
- Trump says number of Pakistan-flagged oil tankers Iran had permitted through the Strait of Hormuz had now been doubled to 20 – FT
“To be honest with you, my favourite thing is to take the oil in Iran but some stupid people back in the US say: ‘why are you doing that?’" he told FT.
Also:
- Trump says could take Kharg Island ‘very easily’: FT
- Trump thinks Irans have no defense on Kharg Island: FT
- Trump says indirect talks via emissaries progressing well: FT
- Trump says a deal could be made ‘fairly quickly’: FT
****
Also, via Wall Street Journal:
Summary
- President Donald Trump is weighing a direct military operation to seize Iran’s enriched uranium, according to U.S. officials.
- The mission would likely require U.S. troops on Iranian soil for days, making it one of the most complex options under consideration.
- Washington is also pushing for Iran to hand over the material via negotiations, avoiding a high-risk ground operation.
- The uranium stockpile—central to the war’s rationale—remains located at key sites including Isfahan and Natanz.
- Any forced extraction would risk significant escalation and prolonging the conflict beyond current timelines.
President Donald Trump is considering a high-risk military operation to seize Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, a move that would mark a major escalation in the ongoing conflict and potentially require U.S. forces to operate inside Iran for an extended period, according to U.S. officials.
The proposed mission would target nearly 1,000 pounds of uranium believed to be stored at key nuclear sites, including underground facilities in Isfahan and Natanz. The material is central to Washington’s stated objective of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, and its removal, either through negotiation or force, has emerged as a core condition for ending the war.
While no decision has been made, officials say the president remains open to the option, even as he weighs the risks to U.S. personnel. The operation itself would be complex and logistically demanding. Military planners envision inserting forces into contested areas, securing perimeters under potential missile and drone fire, and deploying specialised teams capable of safely extracting radioactive material. The uranium, stored in multiple cylinders, would need to be transported under strict safety protocols, likely requiring a coordinated airlift operation.
Experts caution that such a mission would not be a rapid strike but a multi-day operation, increasing exposure to Iranian retaliation and raising the risk of a broader escalation. The potential for the conflict to extend beyond its current expected timeframe, previously framed as several weeks, has become a key concern among policymakers and military officials.
Diplomatic efforts remain ongoing in parallel. The U.S. has encouraged Iran to surrender the uranium as part of a negotiated settlement, with intermediaries including Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt facilitating indirect contacts. However, no direct talks have taken place, and Iran has so far resisted such demands.
The debate reflects a broader strategic dilemma. Seizing the uranium could deliver a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but at the cost of significant operational risk and potential escalation. Conversely, a negotiated transfer would avoid direct confrontation but depends on concessions Tehran has shown little willingness to make.
As military preparations continue and additional forces are positioned in the region, the uranium question is emerging as a central pivot point in the conflict—one that could determine whether the war moves toward resolution or enters a more dangerous and prolonged phase.
