re: Kharg island heavily bombed per POTUS

quote:

---

I’m aware. But the strait has to be opened. So we’ll have to take some casualties.

---

quote:

---

e would get crushed at midterms if oil is at $150, and he is smart he knows it

---

quote:

---

The post you shared from Donald J. Trump (which matches reports of his actual Truth Social statement from March 13–14, 2026) contains several internal contradictions or highly strained claims when read closely, especially in light of known facts about Kharg Island, military realities, and the reported strike itself.

Here are the main contradictions and implausibilities:

1. "totally obliterated every MILITARY target" on Kharg Island
? Kharg Island is tiny (~5–7 square miles / 13–20 km²), densely packed, and its primary (essentially only major) function is as Iran's main oil export terminal. It handles ~90% of Iran's crude exports via terminals, storage tanks, loading platforms, pipelines, and related facilities.
Military assets (radars, air defenses, small garrisons, missile sites, etc.) exist there, but they are secondary and integrated with / colocated near the oil infrastructure.
Claiming to have "totally obliterated every military target" while deliberately leaving the oil infrastructure completely intact requires either surgically perfect strikes (unlikely at scale on such a small, mixed-use island) or accepting that many "military" targets are embedded in or immediately adjacent to the oil facilities. Reports of the actual strike describe hits on military sites while sparing oil terminals, but the "every" and "totally obliterated" phrasing is classic exaggeration — no source confirms every single military asset was destroyed without collateral effect on the island's core purpose.

2. "for reasons of decency, I have chosen NOT to wipe out the Oil Infrastructure"
? This frames restraint as a generous, moral choice. But the decision to spare oil facilities is far more likely driven by strategic/economic calculations: destroying Kharg's oil export capability would spike global oil prices dramatically (potentially $150–200+/barrel in a worst-case disruption), hurt the U.S. economy and allies, alienate oil-importing nations, and risk much wider escalation (including possible Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation).
Presenting it primarily as "decency" toward Iran contradicts the rest of the post's extremely aggressive, threatening tone ("Iran will NEVER have a nuclear weapon", "lay down their arms", "save what's left of their country, which isn't much"). It's hard to square mercy/de cency with simultaneously calling the regime terrorist, helpless, and on the verge of destruction.

3. "Iran has NO ability to defend anything that we want to attack — There is nothing they can do about it"
? Immediately after describing a major (but limited) strike, this blanket claim overstates U.S. invulnerability. Iran retains significant asymmetric capabilities (drones, ballistic/cruise missiles, naval mines, proxy forces, cyber, Strait of Hormuz harassment, etc.) even after losing some defenses on Kharg.
The post itself undercuts this by warning that interference in the Strait would prompt reconsideration of sparing oil infrastructure — implying Iran does have ways to interfere meaningfully and impose costs. If they truly had "nothing they can do," the threat/warning would be unnecessary.

4. "Iran will NEVER have a nuclear weapon, nor will it have the ability to threaten the United States... the Middle East or... the World!"
? This is presented as an accomplished, permanent fact ("will NEVER"). Yet the strike described was on Kharg Island (oil hub), not on nuclear facilities (Natanz, Fordow, Arak, Parchin, etc.). No part of the post or reports indicates any nuclear sites were hit.
Claiming permanent prevention of an Iranian nuclear weapon based on bombing an oil island (while leaving enrichment/spinning centrifuges untouched) is a non sequitur — unless the implication is future strikes, but the wording treats it as settled.

5. Minor rhetorical contradiction: boasting about rebuilding "the Most Lethal, Powerful, and Effective Force... anywhere in the World" (past and present tense) while needing to carry out a dramatic new raid to prove dominance over Iran.
If the military was already overwhelmingly superior, the need for such a loudly trumpeted (pun intended) "most powerful bombing raid in the History of the Middle East" to make a point feels inconsistent with total unchallenged supremacy.

In short, the post mixes extreme triumphalism and totalizing claims ("totally obliterated every", "NO ability", "NEVER", "nothing they can do") with admissions of restraint and future conditionality — creating tension between portraying absolute, effortless dominance and acknowledging that escalation choices still exist and Iran retains leverage (via the Strait/oil disruption threat).

The attached image (presumably the dramatic strike footage Trump shared) likely shows explosions on military/radar sites or secondary facilities, but not the massive burning oil terminals one would expect if the entire island's infrastructure had been "wiped out" — reinforcing the selective targeting despite the hyperbolic language.

---

quote:

---

But there have been a few Kuwaiti ships attacked in that area by drones so I still say we take Kharg and put some air defenses on it.

---