Foreign Fighters in Syria: Problem or Part of the Solution?

In this photo released by the Saudi Royal Palace, Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, left, shakes hands with President Donald Trump, center, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, May 14, 2025. At right is Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.(Bandar Aljaloud/Saudi Royal Palace via AP)
In this photo released by the Saudi Royal Palace, Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, left, shakes hands with President Donald Trump, center, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, May 14, 2025. At right is Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.(Bandar Aljaloud/Saudi Royal Palace via AP)
TT

Foreign Fighters in Syria: Problem or Part of the Solution?

In this photo released by the Saudi Royal Palace, Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, left, shakes hands with President Donald Trump, center, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, May 14, 2025. At right is Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.(Bandar Aljaloud/Saudi Royal Palace via AP)
In this photo released by the Saudi Royal Palace, Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, left, shakes hands with President Donald Trump, center, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, May 14, 2025. At right is Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.(Bandar Aljaloud/Saudi Royal Palace via AP)

US President Donald Trump’s announcement to lift sanctions on Syria came with five conditions, chief among them the demand that “all foreign fighters” leave Syrian territory, a requirement that poses a significant challenge to the new administration of President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

The presence of these fighters, many of whom have been allied for years with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), underscores the complexity of Trump’s demand. These militants played a key role in the conflict against former President Bashar al-Assad, and many in HTS view them as having earned their place on the battlefield through loyalty and sacrifice.

The influx of foreign fighters into Syria began with the formation of the Free Syrian Army in the early days of the uprising. Türkiye’s border soon became a dual gateway, a route of escape for Syrians fleeing war, either settling in Türkiye or continuing toward Europe, and a corridor for hundreds of non-Syrian fighters arriving to join the battle.

Initially, many of these fighters aligned themselves with non-ideological armed groups. But over time, especially between 2012 and 2014, as the regime intensified its use of barrel bombs and heavy weaponry on opposition-held neighborhoods, the foreign fighters gained prominence in what became known as the “revolutionary strongholds,” particularly in Syria’s north.

‘The Migrants’ of the Revolution

Their combat skills and commitment earned them both fear and admiration. In this period, foreign fighters often led the charge in so-called “inghimasi” (commando-style) and suicide operations, which won them significant support among local communities. They were dubbed “al-Muhajireen” - the migrants - a reference both to their origins and their perceived dedication to the Syrian cause.

Following the collapse of the former Syrian regime on December 8, foreign fighter factions such as the Turkistan Islamic Party, Ajnad al-Sham and Ajnad al-Kavkaz (Chechens) emerged as key players within the operations command room led by the HTS.

In his first public remarks on the presence of foreign fighters, Syria’s new president described them as instrumental in toppling Bashar al-Assad’s regime and said they “deserve to be rewarded.”

Speaking to journalists in mid-January, al-Sharaa said the atrocities committed by the former government had necessitated foreign support, and hinted at the possibility of granting these fighters Syrian citizenship, a suggestion that sparked widespread debate.

Soon after, the new administration took steps that signaled both gratitude and political calculation: several foreign fighters were appointed to senior military posts in the newly restructured Syrian army, with ranks ranging from colonel to brigadier general.

Among the most prominent were Jordanian Abdulrahman Hussein al-Khatib, promoted to brigadier general; Egyptian Alaa Mohamed Abdel Baki; Uyghur militant Abdulaziz Dawood Khodabardi; Tajik national Moulana Tursun Abdulsamad; Turkish fighter Omar Mohamed Jeftchi Mukhtar; Albanian Abdul Bashari Khattab; and Dagestani native Zanor al-Basri Abdelhamid Abdullah, the commander of the “Army of Emigrants and Supporters.”

A Dilemma at the Heart of Syria’s Future

A former HTS commander, speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on condition of anonymity, said the al-Sharaa administration is unlikely to oppose the US demand.

“The muhajireen brothers themselves are not clinging to their positions if they stand in the way of the country’s interests,” he said.

Indeed, less than 24 hours after Trump and al-Sharaa met in the Saudi capital, local Syrian outlets began reporting that General Security forces had raided foreign fighter strongholds in rural Idlib.

Asharq Al-Awsat was unable to independently verify the reports, but whether the raids were genuine or simply political theater, analysts say the message was unmistakable: Damascus may be willing to act decisively to secure international recognition and economic relief.

Kareem Mohammed, a current Syrian army commander and former battalion leader in the HTS with direct ties to foreign fighters, told Asharq Al-Awsat from Damascus that these combatants still hold significant sway within the country’s military and security apparatus, as well as among the revolution’s grassroots base.

“There is no interest for the government in taking negative action against them,” Mohammed said. “They remain popular within the ranks of the new army and the revolutionary heartland.”

Mohammed added that several countries have recently begun raising the issue of foreign fighters as a bargaining chip in their engagement with Syria’s new leadership. But he emphasized the crucial role these militants - referred to by rebels as al-Muhajireen (the migrants) - played from the outset of the uprising.

“These fighters had a decisive impact from the early days of the revolution. Their military expertise stood out in key battles,” he said.

According to Mohammed, the al-Sharaa government is actively working to distance the muhajireen from internal political conflicts and reassign them to their former positions in Idlib. There are also promises of eventual integration into Syrian society and possibly even the granting of citizenship down the line.

The ongoing debate over the presence of foreign fighters in Syria may be based on a misunderstanding, according to extremist group researcher Hossam Jazmati, who says Western powers are not explicitly calling for their expulsion.

“The American and Western demands are not about deporting foreign fighters,” Jazmati told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“Rather, they focus on two main conditions: that these individuals do not hold prominent positions in the emerging Syrian state, particularly in the army, security, or government , and that Syrian territory is not used by any of them to launch, prepare for, or train for military operations abroad.”

Jazmati noted that even during Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s control over Idlib in recent years, the group maintained a policy of preventing factions from using Syrian territory as a base for cross-border attacks.

“HTS managed to keep the jihadist movements in check, discouraging any ambitions of launching operations beyond Syria’s borders,” he said.

As the future of foreign fighters in Syria hangs in the balance, allies and commanders aligned with the so-called muhajireen are rejecting any calls for their expulsion or forced repatriation.

“What their brothers and allies refuse is the idea of throwing them out of a country they fought to defend against a brutal regime, or handing them over to their home countries, where prison, or even execution, likely awaits,” said Jazmati.

“Generally speaking, I don’t believe that leaders and fighters in the HTS, or other factions, or even the religious and revolutionary base that admires the muhajireen model, insist on these fighters taking part in building the new state,” he added. “Nor do I think the foreign fighters themselves want that.”

That sentiment is echoed by Abu Hafs al-Turkistani, a former leader in the Turkistan Islamic Party who now heads a battalion within the Syrian army under the Ministry of Defense. His unit, composed mainly of Uyghur fighters, is stationed between Idlib and the Latakia countryside.

“We didn’t come to Syria to kill Syrians,” Turkistani told Asharq Al-Awsat. “We didn’t come here for money or positions. We came to support them, to share their suffering and help them as best we could, and thanks to God, victory was achieved, and we are honored to have taken part in it.”

Turkistani dismissed accusations linking foreign fighters to recent violence in coastal areas or in Sweida as part of a broader media campaign to vilify them. “These are baseless allegations,” he said.

Turkistani insisted that foreign fighters have largely kept to themselves and respected Syrian customs and traditions.

“We never interfered in the lives of Syrians. We’ve lived among them for years and stayed out of their personal affairs. Every nation has its differences, and while we may not agree on everything, we never tried to impose ourselves on their society,” he said.

As for past incidents in Idlib involving foreign fighters, Turkistani acknowledged isolated cases but said they were not repeated and did not reflect a broader pattern of misconduct. “The Syrians know that well,” he added.

Jazmati says Syria’s new leadership could resolve the foreign fighters dilemma by allowing them to stay under clear legal terms, provided they step away from power and military involvement.

“The muhajireen can remain in Syria under officially agreed legal arrangements, as civilians only,” Jazmati told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“They were never here to govern, and should not be placed at the forefront of a state they have no intention of ruling. But they must also pledge not to use Syrian territory to plan or launch jihadist operations in their home countries or elsewhere, as that could cause serious harm. If they refuse, they can leave for a destination of their choice.”

Appointments Stir Controversy

A foreign fighter of Arab nationality, known as Abu Mohammed, told Asharq Al-Awsat that he and others remain committed to the state led by al-Sharaa.

“We will not turn against Sharaa. We never did,” he said. “We avoided factional infighting and always prioritized Syria’s interests, which never clashed with our own. We were ready to die for the lives of Syrians, and now we know how to live under a state we respect and value.”

However, Jazmati warned that the real challenge lies in undoing the senior military appointments made shortly after the fall of the Assad regime, including three generals and three colonels, all foreign nationals.

“Reversing those promotions and assignments is a political and institutional dilemma,” Jazmati said. “It’s only been three weeks since the regime’s collapse, and these titles carry weight.”

According to confidential information seen by Jazmati, Syrian officials have pledged to halt the appointment of non-Syrians going forward.

But resolving the status of those already promoted remains a sensitive issue, one that may require a compromise that preserves their dignity, rank, and possibly even their current roles.

Efforts to limit the influence of foreign fighters in Syria’s post-Assad era are unlikely to trigger a resurgence of al-Qaeda or ISIS, according Jazmati.

“I don’t see al-Qaeda seeking a revival in Syria after its affiliate, Hurras al-Din, was dismantled,” Jazmati told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“As for ISIS, while its Syrian strategy remains unclear, it could attempt to recruit disaffected individuals, both Syrian and foreign, who are frustrated by the new government’s policies. Other smaller groups may also emerge, especially those that believe the current leadership is straying from their interpretation of Islamic law.”

Fragmented Landscape of Foreign Fighters

Not all foreign fighters in Syria fall along a single ideological spectrum. Divisions among them have existed since the early days of their arrival, influenced by how they were recruited and the routes they took to join the war.

Some were brought in through structured recruitment networks. These fighters were often contacted online, vetted, and then smuggled into Syria through well-organized channels. Others arrived independently, relying on human smugglers and covering their own travel costs, usually via Türkiye on tourist visas.

By mid-2013, as the rebel scene in Syria splintered, foreign fighters mostly gravitated toward jihadist factions, especially Jabhat al-Nusra. A smaller number joined so-called “moderate” groups such as Liwa al-Tawhid in Aleppo.

Ideological Rifts and Realignment

As rivalries over ideology and influence deepened, most foreign fighters shifted between groups, particularly after Jabhat al-Nusra’s break from ISIS. The split followed its former leader Ahmad al-Sharaa’s refusal to pledge allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, instead aligning with former al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri.

That move sparked further defections, with some foreign fighters rejecting al-Zawahiri’s authority and joining ISIS.

Clashes between the factions ensued, eventually leading to the rise of independent groups like Jund al-Aqsa, founded by Abu Abdul Aziz al-Qatari, a jihadist of Palestinian origin born in Iraq.

Other units formed along national lines, including Uyghur, Uzbek, and Chechen battalions.

By mid-2014, the rise of ISIS across western Iraq and into Syria’s Deir Ezzor, Raqqa, parts of Hasakah, and the Aleppo and Idlib countryside intensified rivalries among jihadist factions.

ISIS declared other foreign-led groups apostates, even as many maintained ties with Jabhat al-Nusra and adopted a position of neutrality in the escalating infighting.

Factions like the Turkistan Islamic Party, Ajnad al-Sham, Ajnad al-Kavkaz, and Ansar al-Tawhid, as well as remnants of Jund al-Aqsa, survived through Assad’s fall, opting for autonomy or quiet alliance with the HTS.

The Syrianization of the Fight

Between 2014 and 2018, HTS, under the leadership of Abu Mohammad al-Jolani (al-Sharaa), systematically sidelined foreign fighters, removing them from leadership roles and the media spotlight.

Many were arrested or expelled, especially those affiliated with hardline factions such as Hurras al-Din, or those resistant to HTS’s pivot toward local governance.

The shift was both strategic and ideological.

Syrians increasingly resented the dominance of foreign leaders within the group, while international actors, particularly Türkiye, raised concerns about HTS’s associations with transnational jihadism.

Foreign fighters were often seen preaching al-Qaeda-style rhetoric and resisting cooperation with the Turkish military,which they denounced due to its NATO membership.

Al-Sharaa responded by launching a sweeping reform within HTS, marginalizing extremists regardless of nationality.

He rebranded the movement’s mission from global jihad to Syrian nationalism, using phrases like “Thawrat Ahl al-Sham” (“the revolution of the people of the Levant”) to underscore local priorities.

Many foreign fighters aligned with this vision, describing themselves as “supporters” rather than leaders of Syria’s future, as HTS moved to integrate them into the new nationalist framework.

Al-Sharaa’s project of “Syrianizing” the battle and its fighters aimed to distance the group from its jihadist roots and bring it closer to the political mainstream.

Now as president, al-Sharaa faces a new test: can he extend this project of ideological reform and integration under a national flag, while appeasing international stakeholders demanding limits on foreign fighters?

Observers say success will depend on his ability to restructure without alienating the fighters who once formed the backbone of the armed opposition.

The challenge lies in balancing their role in Syria’s recent history with the imperatives of diplomacy, reconstruction, and future security.

Whether Sharaa’s past efforts at moderation and localization can evolve into a credible state policy remains to be seen but with pressure mounting from both allies and adversaries, the answer may define the country’s next chapter.



Why Is a ‘Very Close’ Iran-US Deal Taking So Long?

A man walks past Iran's national flag at the Vanak Square in Tehran on June 10, 2026. (AFP)
A man walks past Iran's national flag at the Vanak Square in Tehran on June 10, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Why Is a ‘Very Close’ Iran-US Deal Taking So Long?

A man walks past Iran's national flag at the Vanak Square in Tehran on June 10, 2026. (AFP)
A man walks past Iran's national flag at the Vanak Square in Tehran on June 10, 2026. (AFP)

President Donald Trump has repeatedly declared Iran and the US are on the verge of agreeing a deal to end the Middle East war, but a litany of sticking points have delayed finalizing an accord and will complicate its implementation, analysts say.

Trump has been widely mocked in US and Iran for frequently insisting an end to the conflict was imminent even as negotiations dragged on for weeks, with US network CNN saying he had used phrases like "very close to a deal" or in the "final throes" of talks on 39 occasions.

In what has become a familiar pattern, Trump on Thursday withdrew a threat of renewed strikes on Iran and said a deal could be signed in the coming days, only for Iran's foreign ministry to respond by saying it "has not reached a final conclusion on the agreement".

Arash Azizi, lecturer at Yale University, told AFP that one reason the deal has taken so long is that the Iranian side believed "they could hold out to get better terms" after not capitulating during the conflict.

Trump, meanwhile, "could hardly stomach" releasing Iran's frozen assets -- a key demand of Tehran -- and also risked facing accusations the accord would be more favorable to Iran than the 2015 nuclear deal he pulled out of during his first term, he added.

Trump "had to accept that his initial gambit of causing an Iranian capitulation by sheer military force didn't work and he had to settle for something much less", said Azizi.

Both Iran and the United States would appear to have vested interests in ending a conflict that saw five weeks of all-out war, paused by an uneasy ceasefire on April 8.

The US-Israeli war has become increasingly unpopular in the US, even among the president's core supporters, with Trump mindful of the looming US midterm elections.

A deal could also see Tehran win the security guarantees and recognition it has long craved from the US and ensure the personal safety of its own leadership, after former supreme leader Ali Khamenei and several top officials were killed in the first phase of the war.

But any negotiation -- in this case mediated by Pakistan as well as Qatar -- between two foes who have been sworn enemies since shortly after the 1979 revolution was never going to be easy.

- 'Frozen war' with 'flare-ups' -

Iran's new leadership structure after the killing of Ali Khamenei has likely proved problematic, with the extent of the power wielded by his successor and son Mojtaba Khamenei still unclear. He is said by Iranian officials to have been wounded and has yet to appear in public.

Trump's own pronouncements have also changed with startling rapidity, most notably on Thursday when he threatened to hit Iran "very hard" before predicting that a "great settlement" was near.

Trump, in a Truth Social post Friday, appeared to again be losing patience, describing the Iranian side as "very dishonorable people to deal with".

"Trump has neither a clear strategic objective nor a credible exit strategy for extricating the United States from the war with Iran," said Ali Alfoneh, a senior fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute (AGSI).

He said a key obstacle was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has opposed any Iran-US deal and on Friday again vowed "Iran will not have nuclear weapons".

The Iranian authorities, meanwhile, have "sensed Trump's reluctance to enter the midterm election season burdened by an unpopular war", and seek above all an enduring peace without US aggression, said Alfoneh.

"The conflict has already taken on the characteristics of a frozen war, punctuated by periodic flare-ups," he added.

- 'Tremendous leverage' -

Iran has always insisted that any deal include Lebanon, where Israel has been attacking the Tehran-backed group Hezbollah, which has been further weakened but not eradicated.

A White House official said on Friday that Iran had agreed to dismantle its nuclear program, which the West fears is aimed at making a nuclear weapon -- a commitment that has yet to be confirmed by Tehran.

Critical will be the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz shipping bottleneck, which Iran blockaded at the start of the war in a move that caused global energy prices to surge.

Iran "will not forget the tremendous leverage it gained by closing it," Thomas Juneau, professor at the University of Ottawa, wrote in a study for London-based think tank Chatham House.

"It will not hesitate to consider closing the Strait again if it perceives it to be necessary."


What to Know About the Growing Opposition to Trump Family-Linked Resort in Albania

A drone view shows people during a protest against a luxury resort, a plan by a company linked to Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, on an environmentally sensitive part of the Adriatic coast, in Zvernec near Vlora, Albania June 6, 2026. (Reuters)
A drone view shows people during a protest against a luxury resort, a plan by a company linked to Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, on an environmentally sensitive part of the Adriatic coast, in Zvernec near Vlora, Albania June 6, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

What to Know About the Growing Opposition to Trump Family-Linked Resort in Albania

A drone view shows people during a protest against a luxury resort, a plan by a company linked to Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, on an environmentally sensitive part of the Adriatic coast, in Zvernec near Vlora, Albania June 6, 2026. (Reuters)
A drone view shows people during a protest against a luxury resort, a plan by a company linked to Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, on an environmentally sensitive part of the Adriatic coast, in Zvernec near Vlora, Albania June 6, 2026. (Reuters)

A massive coastal development project linked to Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump, is facing growing resistance from protesters in Albania.

Thousands of protesters are taking to the streets in nightly protests, blowing whistles and holding up cardboard cut-outs of flamingos — one of the protected migratory bird species that could see their habitats threatened by the proposed luxury resort.

The government says the development on the Adriatic coast would be transformational for the former communist nation as it seeks to enter the high-end tourism market and pushes for European Union membership.

But the venture, spanning an abandoned island and a nearby stretch of seafront on Albania’s southern coast, has drawn opposition from environmental campaigners and critics of longtime Socialist Prime Minister Edi Rama.

Outside forces blamed for anger

In an interview with The Associated Press, Rama vowed not to “step back” from the development and defended his administration's environmental record. He insisted the protests were being encouraged by malicious cyber activists overseas.

“There is a lot of manipulation. There are a lot of half-truths that become bigger and bigger lies by the hour,” Rama said, accusing Iran of targeting his government.

The allegations, which Rama has made for several years, followed a dispute with Albania after it sheltered members of an Iranian opposition group in 2022. Iran has denied the claims.

Despite Rama's defense of the development, the protests have gathered pace, with supporters in Albanian communities in neighboring Greece and other European countries also holding rallies.

A drone view of protesters waving Albanian National flags during a protest against a luxury resort, a plan by a company linked to US President Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, on an environmentally sensitive part of the Adriatic coast, in Tirana, Albania, June 10, 2026. (Reuters)

Kushner and Ivanka Trump found the site on a barefoot hike

The luxury project has two components: a coastal development in the Narta Lagoon area, which is a wildlife reserve, and a smaller resort on the nearby uninhabited island of Sazan, a communist-era military base.

The planned development of hotels, apartments, villas and a marina is linked to Kushner and Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump. An investment firm linked to Kushner has been granted special investor status by Albanian authorities.

In an interview this week with US podcaster David Senra, Ivanka Trump said they discovered the site by accident.

“We were on a friend’s boat, and we stopped for a swim. Effectively, that’s how we found it,” she said. “We swam to the island. We went on a hike, barefoot all the way up to the top, and we were just captivated.”

Harsh communist rule and pristine beaches

Albania has 450 kilometers (280 miles) of coast that remained largely underdeveloped during decades of harsh communist rule.

Protest groups fear sections of that pristine coastline could be snapped up by powerful investors. And public anger grew after video showed an activist being dragged by a private security guard while demonstrating at the site.

The development is planned within a nature reserve and one of Albania’s most valuable biodiversity areas, a key stopover for migratory birds along the Adriatic coast.

Since late May, excavators and other heavy machinery have entered the area, opening access routes, digging into the sand, clearing land among pine trees and installing fencing.

Environmental groups from Albania and elsewhere in Europe condemned the work, with one prominent local group charging that long-protected habitats are being “irreversibly destroyed.”

Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama speaks during an interview with The Associated Press in Tirana, Albania, Tuesday, June 9, 2026. (APi)

A multibillion-dollar bonanza?

Albania’s state anti-corruption agency has confirmed it opened an investigation related to the project but has not disclosed details.

The government says the land earmarked for the project is privately owned. But competing claims have emerged questioning the privatization.

Rama has committed to the venture, saying it would align with Albania’s ambition to become a major global tourism destination.

“Albania should not be a country that fears an extraordinary project like this one, where exceptional partners have come together to invest 4 billion euros ($4.6 billion),” Rama said.

He added: “There is no chance for this investment to stop as long as I am here.”

However, the demise of a similar project in Serbia offers a cautionary tale. In November, Serbia's Parliament passed a special law to enable the building of a luxury complex in the capital, Belgrade, to be financed by an investment company linked to Kushner.

The following month, Serbia's prosecutor for organized crime charged four people, including a government minister, with abuse of office and falsifying of documents to help pave the way for the development.

Kushner later withdrew from the planned multimillion investment that would have replaced a sprawling bombed-out military complex, a designated heritage zone whose legal protection was lifted by the former officials now on trial.


Kharg... A Pivotal Island for Iran

This handout image taken by the European Space Agency (ESA) captured by the Copernicus Sentinel-2 satellite shows a view of Iran's Kharg Island. (Photo by EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY / AFP)
This handout image taken by the European Space Agency (ESA) captured by the Copernicus Sentinel-2 satellite shows a view of Iran's Kharg Island. (Photo by EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY / AFP)
TT

Kharg... A Pivotal Island for Iran

This handout image taken by the European Space Agency (ESA) captured by the Copernicus Sentinel-2 satellite shows a view of Iran's Kharg Island. (Photo by EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY / AFP)
This handout image taken by the European Space Agency (ESA) captured by the Copernicus Sentinel-2 satellite shows a view of Iran's Kharg Island. (Photo by EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY / AFP)

Islands under Iran's control, spanning from the northern Arabian Gulf to the entrance of the Strait of Hormuz, have returned to the forefront of the war as part of direct military calculations.

These islands gain additional importance as potential points for engagement in a new phase of the war, shifting the battlefield to energy warfare and transit control.

At the heart of this map stands Kharg Island, which US President Donald Trump had threatened to seize, considering it the lifeline for Iranian oil exports. Meanwhile, other islands serve functions of controlling transit, military fortification, and advanced strategic positioning on one of the world's most sensitive maritime passages.

Kharg Island is an 8-kilometer-long coral island in the Arabian Gulf, located approximately 43 kilometers off the mainland and about 500 kilometers northwest of the Strait of Hormuz. It is the terminus for pipelines coming from Iran's oil fields in the central and western parts of the country. It was established by the giant American oil company Amoco and seized by Iran during the 1979 revolution.

Kharg Island occupies an exceptional position in Iran's strategic structure, serving as the lifeline for the majority of Iranian crude exports. It is located in the northern Gulf off the Iranian coast, making it close enough to the Iranian mainland to remain under the umbrella of its fires, missile, and drone capabilities.

Its importance stems primarily from its direct economic function. The island houses the terminal through which almost all of Iran's oil exports pass, securing the largest share of the state's crude revenues. During the ongoing war, it quickly became a prominent target in military discussions, as striking it would impact one of the state's most vital funding sources.

The Most Important Gateway

The island developed during Iran's oil boom in the 1960s and 1970s because large parts of the Iranian coast were too shallow to allow supertankers to dock. Hence, with its deep harbors and terminals, the island became the most important gateway for Iranian oil exports, especially to Asian markets, particularly China.

Theoretically, any American control could choke a vital financial artery for the regime and give Washington leverage to compel Tehran to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. Moreover, due to its location, the island could, in such a scenario, turn into an advanced platform for military pressure on the Iranian mainland. However, this temptation is met with significant obstacles.

Seizure would require stationing American forces on a small island very close to the Iranian coast, meaning within range of Iranian drones, missiles, and mobile artillery, and the potential use of mines and fast boats. Thus, an attacking force could quickly become a fixed target vulnerable to attrition.

Furthermore, retaining the island after forces enter it would require constant air cover, advanced air defense systems, and protected supply lines by sea and air. Tehran has increased its fortifications on Kharg in recent weeks, sending additional personnel and deploying air defense assets, alongside reports of mines around the island.

Significant Strategic Advantages

It also threatened to target American forces if they attempted to enter the island, and to strike the energy infrastructure of companies dealing with the United States if its oil facilities were targeted.

The island includes storage tanks, housing for thousands of workers, and has a clear civilian presence. It also contains an old Portuguese fortress and the ruins of an early Christian monastery in the Gulf.

The Washington Post said on Thursday that for the US, capturing the island would give the United States significant strategic advantages, including potentially choking off Tehran’s ability to pay its military.

Despite intensive strikes launched by the United States and Israel against targets inside Iran, Kharg Island, the most important center for Iranian oil exports, has remained off the list of these strikes so far; experts warn that striking it could cause a catastrophic collapse in global markets.

Threat to Strike the Island

Trump had repeatedly threatened to launch strikes on the island's oil infrastructure if Tehran did not stop its attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a warning observers said could heighten market tensions already suffering unprecedented supply disruptions.

Trump had stated during the bombing of Iran that the United States had completely destroyed military targets on the island. He added that the American strikes had not targeted the oil infrastructure on Kharg Island, but he wrote that if Iran or anyone else does anything to interfere with the free and safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, he will immediately reconsider this decision.

Centcom said US forces had struck more than 90 Iranian military targets on the island, “while preserving the oil infrastructure.”

The regional military command unit said it had destroyed naval mine storage facilities, missile storage bunkers and numerous other military sites.