Trump Said He Could 'Take the Oil' From Iran — Here Is the International Law Problem

Trump posted that the US could 'TAKE THE OIL' from Iran. Here is the specific international law that makes this impossible and whether it would actually happen.

Trump's April 4, 2026 Truth Social post — 'With a little more time, we can easily OPEN THE HORMUZ STRAIT, TAKE THE OIL, & MAKE A FORTUNE' — produced the specific international law alarm that any US president's publicly stated intention to seize a sovereign nation's natural resources generates.

For what 'taking the oil' would specifically involve: Iran's primary oil production and export infrastructure is centered at Kharg Island — which has been struck multiple times but whose oil infrastructure was explicitly not targeted 'for reasons of decency,' per Trump's own explanation. 'Taking' Iranian oil would require either military occupation of extraction and processing facilities, forced transfer of revenue from oil sales whose proceeds Iran normally receives, or the specific seizure of Iranian oil tankers whose cargo represents the sovereign property of the Iranian state.

For the international law problem: Article 47 of the Hague Regulations, incorporated into customary international humanitarian law, prohibits pillage of enemy property. The specific seizure of natural resources from a country you are at war with does not meet the specific legal exceptions that international law recognises for military necessity. The post-World War II international legal framework — specifically including the United Nations Charter prohibitions on acquiring territory by force — was specifically designed to prevent exactly this type of resource seizure.

For the pragmatic problems beyond law: even if legal objections were dismissed, the specific logistical challenge of 'taking' Iranian oil — whose extraction, storage, and export infrastructure requires specific technical operation — involves an occupation-level military presence whose manpower requirements the US military is not currently configured to provide on top of its ongoing air campaign.

For what the post likely represents: Trump's specific rhetorical style includes statements about potential future actions that are as much about applying pressure as they are literal policy announcements. 'TAKE THE OIL' in this specific context may function as the same type of escalatory threat as 'stone ages' — designed to convey the specific seriousness of his intention to resolve the Hormuz situation rather than constituting a literal operational plan.