Americanswers! Why does Trump want to take Iran’s Kharg Island?

0:00This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

0:30No bouncing between tabs. And best of all, no spreadsheets. Stop managing software and start managing your business with one unified system. Try for free today at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. Self-directed investing. Trading. Full-service wealth management. Automated investing. Financial planning. Thematic investing. Retirement planning. Phew. And to think, that's just a small taste of what Schwab offers. Because Schwab knows that when it comes to your finances, choice matters. No matter your goals, investing style, life stage or experience, Schwab has everything you need, all in one place, so you can invest your way.

1:11Visit schwab.com to learn more. There is a lot to catch up on with the US war with Iran. It continues to be the single biggest issue you ask us about. So today we are answering your questions, which include, What happens next after Trump threatens to seize Iran's Karg Island? Is there a risk of countries like China being dragged into the conflict? Was there insider trading after billions of dollars were made predicting the price of oil? And is Donald Trump looking to shift responsibility for the war onto his defence secretary? Welcome to AmeriCansers. AmeriCast. AmeriCast from BBC News. You hear that, Chad?

1:53Oh, I think when I hear that sound, it reminds me of money. We didn't start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it. This is a big cover up and this administration is engaged in it. This guy has Trump derangement syndrome. I have four words for you. Turn the volume up.

2:15Hello, it's Justin in the worldwide headquarters of AmeriCast in London, England. Hi, it's Sumi here in Washington, D.C. So no Matt Chorley this week is around the UK, apparently using as many different modes of transport as possible, which is a very British thing, Sumi. It'd just be a road trip for you, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, yes. I think there's not a whole lot of other options besides planes and cars here. But I'm curious to hear what Matt is undertaking. Yeah, OK, well, we'll doubtless report back if indeed he gets back. Let's get to the serious stuff now and start with what's actually going on at the moment, or at least what Donald Trump says is going on at the moment.

2:53So he's done this interview, hasn't he, with the Financial Times in which he says he wants to take Iran's oil. He could seize Karg Island, Karg Island being this huge terminal where almost all of Iran's oil goes through in order to get to get to other countries. But he also says he might not do it. It's complicated, isn't it? It is. We've heard this back and forth from President Trump a few times. We've heard him say it's a bit of a carrot and stick approach. On the one hand, he's saying negotiations are going well with Iran and that the Iranians have acted particularly reasonably, the new regime, as he's calling them, even though it's the same regime with a new supreme leader.

3:36And at the same time, look at what's happening with this massive military buildup. We have seen not only the Marines on their amphibious ready ships arriving in the region, but also the reports here in the US that the Pentagon is considering several thousand more. And all of that following, so this interview with the Financial Times in which he seems to be threatening to use some of those troops or maybe not, following on from comments that he gave to a bunch of reporters on Air Force One in which he talked about the negotiations and he appeared to think they were going well. I would only say that we're doing extremely well in that negotiation.

4:16But you never know with Iran because we negotiate with them and then we always have to blow them up. I think we'll make a deal with them, pretty sure. Whether it's possible, we won't. But we've had regime change, if you look, already, because the one regime was decimated, destroyed, they're all dead. The next regime is mostly dead. And the third regime, we're dealing with different people than anybody's dealt with before. It's a whole different group of people. So I would consider that regime change. And frankly, they've been very reasonable. And then bring us up to date with the latest, Sue, because we can now see a further kind of musing on that, can't we, by him on social media?

4:58That's right, Justin. We've seen him on Truth Social saying that the US is in serious discussions with what he says is a new and more reasonable regime to end the military options and said that progress has been made. But if for any reason a deal is not shortly reached, and he adds, which it probably will be, and if the Hormuz Strait is not open for business, which will conclude our lovely, quote, stay in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their electric generating plants, oil wells and hard island, which you mentioned a moment ago. And he said this will be in retribution for our many soldiers and others that Iran has butchered and killed over the old regime's 47 year reign of terror.

5:40So again, similar messaging, but this is a very clear threat, isn't it? Yeah. I mean, it's both raising the stakes and lowering them in a sense, isn't it? Because on the one hand, he says it's all going fine behind the scenes with whoever it is that he thinks he's talking to. But on the other hand, it also suggests that he'll go for broke in a way that would, I mean, really do enormous damage, not just to Iran, but to the world economy, which presumably he knows and people are telling him. So I suppose the real issue for all of this is that he's running these two tracks together. And it's not necessarily something that people don't do in wars.

6:19But it's just the weird thing about Donald Trump is you're never quite sure whether he himself has got a plan behind the scenes where he knows what he's doing or whether it genuinely is chaotic. And what I find really interesting about that latest true social post is he keeps saying new regime versus old regime. Right. And so clearly this is the administration now shaping this narrative that the regime has been changed and that it can work with this new regime. But as we know, Justin, it hasn't. Yeah. I mean, that's the point, isn't it? It's just it's not clear. There's the speaker of the parliament, isn't there, who they seem to think they can do some sort of business with.

6:57But there's no evidence from him or indeed from other Iranians that necessarily there is a sort of group of people who are in charge and in a sense can hand the country to Trump in the negotiating sense and say, this is our country. We now want X, Y and Z. That just doesn't seem to be there. And that is ultimately, I suppose, what he needs. It is. And I think it really underlines as well, as much as President Trump has wanted to paint this as a massive military success, and we have to say that the U.S. military has achieved a lot of those objectives that it set out to achieve with the ballistic missile capabilities of Iran and the nuclear capabilities.

7:37that economic piece has been really hard for the president to achieve, knowing that the Strait of Hormuz still remains a really big bargaining chip for the Iranians and one that they can continue to wield, even as these positive negotiations, as President Trump has described them, are ongoing. And I want to start with a really interesting question we've had, which is slightly takes us not off topic, but it introduces a new topic to all of this or a new side to all of this. And Steve has sent us a voice note. As Trump is now openly talking of seizing Karg Island, what risk is there that this could bring China into the conflict?

8:12And if China takes as much as 80 % of Iran's oil, is this significant for them? This is a really interesting one because China is indeed impacted, as is most of Asia, by the Strait of Hormuz being essentially closed. But China's actually, over the years, stockpiled millions of barrels of oil. It has electrified its economy and it has reduced its dependence in that way on that oil. That isn't to say that it isn't impacted, but not in the way that perhaps many of us had anticipated. And because of that, China has taken a step back and really, again, painted itself as a beacon of stability in the region as a trading partner and as a global player that is actually asking the US and partners to wind down this war.

9:00So I don't see China getting pulled in, but I don't know. Justin, what do you think? Yeah, I think that's right. And I think also as well, Donald Trump doesn't want to antagonize China. And if he were to seize Karg Island, I mean, this is the kind of optimistic take from the Trump administration's point of view. So they seize the island. It's not then attacked in a way that makes it unable to function from Iran itself. And that's a big if. But if that were to be the case, then the oil would continue, presumably that is there at least to flow for a bit and possibly in greater volume than it does at the moment.

9:35And I don't think he'd stop it necessarily going to China. And remember, he is about to go to China himself, isn't he? And wants to have decent relationships with Xi Jinping. So I think on balance, the answer to Steve's question is probably not. China probably isn't going to be brought into the conflict, but they'll certainly be watching all of this nervously, I guess. Yeah. Anything that upends the global economic trading regime is going to be watched closely by China. But at this point, they're not as impacted as the others. We had a question from Jules on Discord saying, how can the US de-escalate the war when Israel appears to have its own independent agenda?

10:14That's been a big question here, Justin. You've seen in the right-wing influencer circles here that there are a few voices like Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, who have said, it is Israel that dragged the US into this war. I know President Trump rejected that, but do they have the same agenda right now? The war has extended into Lebanon, of course, with Israel continuing to strike Hezbollah. The Houthis also now entering global conflict. So it's hard to see whether they actually align completely on what their end goal is. I mean, that's true, except that when it comes to the ability of the US to de-escalate the war, if Israel has its own agenda.

10:56If that agenda, Sumi, was to go on, I mean, they could make the case behind the scenes, couldn't they? But I can't. Is there a realistic possibility of Israel saying to the United States, no, we're not letting you stop this war because we've still got things to do? I can't imagine that would be the case, especially because President Trump would pressure Benjamin Netanyahu as he did when it came to the Gaza ceasefire. What I think is a possibility is remember how diametrically opposed Israel was to the nuclear deal that was brokered under the Obama administration. If there's some sort of negotiation here with Iran to end this conflict that allows any sort of enrichment for the Iranians, which we know that they're going to drive a hard bargain on, that could be something that Israel definitely then pushes back on.

11:48So in negotiations, I see them perhaps loving more pressure on President Trump. Yeah. And do we know what J.D. Vance is up to? It's something we've approached on a couple of pods recently. We've mentioned him quite a bit because you mentioned those influences, but at least they're outside the White House, although they may have some considerable influence on it and on his supporters. But J.D. Vance is, well, I mean, is he on manoeuvres or not on manoeuvres, one wonders? It's hard to say. We haven't seen a whole lot of him, have we? If we've seen anybody out and about on this war, it's been President Trump himself, and it's been the Defence Secretary, Pete Hexeth, who I know we're going to talk about.

12:24But J.D. Vance obviously had different ideas about what a war in Iran would end up involving, and President Trump even has referred to that. He's been more out and about on the domestic agenda. We've seen him make a few stops to tout President Trump's domestic economic agenda. And I think that's a space that he's going to continue to occupy rather than the foreign policy piece. Yeah. We have got a Hegseth question, haven't we? Yeah. Greg and Wigan sent us this email. Does Trump hex us sending Marines and airborne troops into Iran play into the hand of the Iranians? That would lead to large numbers of American deaths and therefore huge pressure from their own countrymen to end the war.

13:06Well, if it did lead to large numbers of American deaths, my goodness, it would certainly lead to that pressure. I don't think there's any doubt about that. I think Greg in Wigan has got it 100 percent right. The question, I suppose, is whether they do it in a way that doesn't lead to widespread deaths. I mean, for instance, Sumi, they go in and do a specific task and then however dangerous and difficult that task is, they are then out again. It seems to me in those circumstances to be really brutal about it. he could afford to take some losses, some American losses, if they could argue that what they did, whether it's taking Harg Island or getting hold of the nuclear material or, I don't know, taking someone out of the country, then if they could get out themselves and it was a done deal, I could see that being still sellable in America.

13:56But if it happens, as Greg in Wigan suggests, Yes, it could. And let's face it, it could. Then I would have thought not so much. I can't imagine that any operation that they launch now with ground troops in any form would involve putting the troops in harm's way in a sense that you wouldn't see huge American losses. That's not something that President Trump, I think, has any appetite for. They've been very careful to say that. Remember, Secretary Rubio even said we can reach our objectives without those ground troops. But no, that would not certainly be something that President Trump would be able to defend.

14:29And that's a point where you'd also see Congress start to rise up. Well, that's an interesting point, you reckon, because we keep on a whole range of subjects. People have been asking us for, well, where's Congress? You think Congress might suddenly be there? The lawmakers I've been speaking to have said, also Republicans have said, if there is a larger ground troop operation that leads to significant American losses, this is where we have to bring this in. And we're talking about senators as well. And if this is a limited military strike involving ground troops to, as you said, take Harg Island, less so because the president can make the argument that they've gone in and come back out.

15:08But anything beyond that, yes, I do think there's real nervousness in Congress. That's really interesting. Olive Oil on Discord. I suspect Olive Oil isn't this person's real name. But anyway, who knows? Maybe it is. Trump says he's winning the war in Iran. If the status quo is winning, what would losing look like, Olive Oil asks. What is the worst case scenario over the next three months? I can't imagine a way that President Trump would talk about the war in Iran in any way that would involve losing. He will talk about having carried out real military success. But I think part of what you're seeing right now is that narrative being challenged with some losing on the economic front.

15:48Look at what Iran has been able to, that economic cost that it's been able to exact by closing the Strait of Hormuz. There's that. And then the question we just answered a moment ago about severe American casualties, that would be a real case of, quote unquote, losing for the Americans. If this war stretches on for another two, three months, you could also make the argument that that is, in a way, Iran successfully defending itself from the US and Israeli attacks. And whether that's losing, hard to say, but certainly not winning for the Trump administration. I'd add two things to that. Number one, it looks as if Iran at the moment, or those who are still around in Iran at the top and have not been killed and who may or may not be willing to do a deal with Trump.

16:34they actually think they're winning at the moment i think it is fair to say because they they give every sign and it may be that they don't actually know what's going on because of course communication is incredibly difficult they're trying to keep themselves alive they know they're hugely penetrated by israeli intelligence and by the americans abilities too to kind of eavesdrop on what they're doing so it could be that they don't know the extent to which they're losing but at the moment they don't think they are but the other point i'd make is that let's not get carried away with ourselves and suggest after however many days it is now that somehow the whole thing's a complete disaster in military terms.

17:13It's right, isn't it, Sumi? You can't yet say that America is not winning this war. Indeed, in military terms, it's been pretty successful. It's just that America loses its wars. You think of, you know, did they win or lose in Iraq in 2003? Did they win or lose in Afghanistan. In military terms, initially, certainly in Iraq and in Afghanistan too, they don't lose because they've got incredible military might. It's what happens next that causes the loss. And this has been one of the major problems with US involvement in these types of wars is after initial military success, planning what happens next has become a huge, huge issue.

17:57And that's going to be no different here in Iran. If you leave a hardened regime with Mostavah Khamenei in place, with the Iranian people continuing to be suppressed, and Iran still posing a threat to the rest of the region, then I don't know how you can say that the U.S. has achieved any sort of long-term success. But, you know, that's something that the Defense Secretary Pete Hexeth has been talking about, that military success. And we have a question, I think, from Christina from Tooting in South London, who emailed, Donald Trump seems to be publicly emphasizing the role of Pete Hegseth in the decision to go to war.

18:31Do you think this is a genuine reflection of how the decision was made or a political attempt to shift the blame as pressure goes? Let's listen to what Donald Trump actually said. So he's talking last week, it was in Tennessee, about the decision whether or not to go to war with Iran. I called Pete, I called General Cain, I called a lot of our great people. We have great people. And I said, let's talk. We got a problem in the Middle East. We have a country known as Iran that for 47 years has been just a purveyor of terror. And they're very close to having a nuclear weapon. And Pete, I think you were the first one to speak up.

19:10And you said, let's do it, because you can't let them have a nuclear weapon. Ah, the first one to speak up, yes. I mean, if it doesn't go well, you don't really want that hanging around you, do you? On the other hand, if it does, and it might still, then you very much do. Is it political? Is Donald Trump separating himself? I mean, you can't be sure, can you? But it is quite marked, isn't it, that Pete Hegseth is now very much publicly named as a person who was keen to go ahead, and behind the scenes we know that J.D. Vance certainly wasn't because Donald Trump said, didn't he, a few days ago that Vance wasn't as enthusiastic as the others.

19:50So you can see real differences there that will become realer, bigger, if it doesn't go well. It feels a little bit like he's setting him up to take blame for any sort of problems that arise going forward, especially because he didn't mention Marco Rubio, did he? Marco Rubio has always been an Iran hawk. we understand that he supported this war so why would he not have then said Marco also was one of the first to speak so it feels a bit like he is singling Pete Hegseth out here and we should mention as well that when he said I called General Kane that's Dan Kane who is Raisin Kane the what is he the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yeah so the most senior military person what we don't know what the advice was because it was his job really, wasn't it?

20:35And that is your job as chairman of the chiefs of joint staff to say to the president, OK, Mr. President, this is what I think the risks are. This is what I think the advantages are to set it all out there. And Trump is keen on him, isn't he? So he would have taken his advice, you assume. Well, in the week before the US Israeli attacks began, I don't know if you remember this, Justin, but there were a few leaks to US media here that Dan Cain had actually warned that there would be severe complications in going into a war with Iran. It appears that he was raising some of the points that we've seen now, the Strait of Hormuz, Iran lashing out at the US's regional allies.

21:13So the attacks went ahead anyways, and appeared to be very well coordinated and planned. Perhaps those leaks were to kind of raise that flag in the media ahead of the war. But it appears that Dan Cain did raise those issues with the administration. God, that's interesting. OK, let's go to voice note now, which we've had from Finn. With so much happening in such a short space of time, it seems that everything has gone quiet about the investigation into the bombing of the Shajira Tayeba Girls Elementary School. Whilst preliminary investigations indicated that this was a US strike, are Donald Trump and the administration hoping that other events make this quietly fall from the minds of the American people?

21:56What does the MAGA base think of such a strike? just a casualty of war? Or do they believe it was the Iranians, as Trump initially speculated? Does this still get any attention in the US media? It doesn't get much attention here in the US media. You've seen that, Justin. It's kind of been something that got a lot of attention as the investigations were going on. And Pete Hegseth said that the Pentagon was investigating. But since then, there's been very little discussion of it. The way that the Trump administration has even talked about U.S. casualties is to say, this is war. And so that is also how they talk about civilian casualties, although making the point that they have said the U.S.

22:36would never deliberately target civilians. Yeah. I talked the other day to David Petraeus. Guy was director of the CIA, but before that was a senior military officer in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And he was interesting about it, Sumi, because he said, I mean, he didn't at all dismiss it. I didn't get the impression that he thought anything other than this was a mistake that had been made by the United States and Israel. I didn't get any impression at all that he thought there was a serious possibility that it was anything else. He did say very clearly, though, when these things happen, and he accepted that they did happen under his watch in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

23:26You think of wedding parties that were blown up, all sorts of awful things happened to civilians in war. This is what David Petraeus would say, I think, if we were here now. But the really important thing, and he really stressed this, there must be a full investigation carried out by an independent inspector, and that investigation needs to be timely and it needs to be published. So that is the view of a very senior former military officer who is by no means an opponent of this war. He talks happily about what Trump is trying to achieve, etc. He's not someone who's against Donald Trump. He's not someone who's against the war.

24:04And I wondered whether, when I was talking to him, Sumi, I just wonder whether he reflected a kind of instinctive view among the American military officer class. We know these things happen. We are better than our opponents because when they do, we're open about them. Yeah, I think that's an interesting point that General Petraeus makes there. And I also found interesting that for all of the statements that Pete Hexas has made and all of the press conferences he's given where he's bragged about U.S. military success, he's been really careful in talking about this strike because when he was asked about this, he said, we are investigating.

24:46When President Trump tried to blame the Iranians, he was then reined back on those comments because it does appear that the investigations have indicated that this was a U.S. strike by mistake. And so we'll have to see if there is a timely investigation. But there seems to be some agreement there that this is something that the U.S. military must carry out quickly. Yeah. And worth saying, of course, at the moment that Iran is targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure right around the Gulf and in Israel as well. And the United States would claim that because it doesn't do it on purpose, that it is still fighting a different sort of war to the war that the Iranians are at least trying to fight.

25:26Right. But it is a really interesting point that it will be. And I think to Finn's point as well, that it doesn't have a lot of cut through to people because there is so much else happening. But at some stage, there will need to be a report landing on the desks of senior people in the Pentagon and presumably Donald Trump's desk as well. and they will need to publish it and they'll need to hold their hands up. Or will they not? In which case, I think people like David Petraeus will think that they behave very badly indeed and may well say so. Anyway, we've had another one about, actually lots of you have asked about this.

26:06Derek asks this, there have been stories of highly questionable trading activities shortly before recent announcements in the American-Israel war with Iran. Some estimates value this at 1.5 billion. Have such trades been detected? Are there insider trading laws in America? Are these federal crimes capable of presidential pardon? Well, that's an interesting point. Are they state offenses? Are many people in America bothered? He asks. Well, it has gotten quite a bit of attention in U.S. media. I'd like to point out that the Truth Social post that we read out at the start of this conversation, Justin, was made about negotiations going very well and being reasonable just before markets opened again.