The prospect of a U.S. move to seize Kharg Island, a strategically vital hub often referred to as Iran’s “oil lifeline,” is considered extremely high risk, both from a geopolitical and economic standpoint.

The five-mile-long coral island, which is located about 15 miles off the coast of mainland Iran in the waters of the northern Persian Gulf, has been left untouched through nearly two weeks of U.S. and Israeli-led strikes against Iran.

The Trump administration has discussed seizing the island, according to an Axios report on March 7, citing four unnamed sources with knowledge of the discussions.

White House officials have previously said they expect oil prices to fall dramatically once Operation Epic Fury comes to an end, while White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said the president “wisely” keeps all options on the table.

Kharg Island has been thrust into the global spotlight because it is regarded as one of Iran’s most sensitive economic targets. The terminal accounts for around 90% of the country’s crude exports and has a loading capacity of roughly 7 million barrels per day.

Analysts say that any attempt to attack or seize it would require a ground troop operation, which the U.S. appears reluctant to undertake. An attack would also likely prompt a sustained increase to already soaring oil prices.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has previously refused to rule out deploying American ground forces in Iran but said the U.S. won’t get bogged down in the country.

Francis Galgano, an associate professor and military geography and environmental security specialist at Villanova University in Pennsylvania, said the location of Kharg Island is important because it sits in deep water that enables the approach of oil supertankers.

“I will put on my war hat … if the objective is to win the war (quickly), you destroy or capture Kharg immediately,” Galgano told CNBC by email, adding that any such attempt would create maximum leverage over Tehran.

Nonetheless, taking the small island would be no mean feat, Galgano said. “It would involve moving a considerable number of ground combat troops into the region … I estimate about 5,000 to take and hold the island.”

He added: “All of this of course affects global oil markets, but they are already being affected.”

Oil prices have been extremely volatile since the U.S. and Israel launched airstrikes on Iran on Feb. 28. Iran has retaliated by targeting ships trying to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, with several incidents reported in recent days.

The narrow waterway is a key maritime corridor that connects the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Roughly 20% of global oil and gas typically passes through it.

International benchmark Brent crude futures with May delivery traded off by 1% at $99.45 per barrel on Friday, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures with April delivery were last seen 2% lower at $93.81.

If Kharg Island were disabled, analysts at JPMorgan said the loss of Iran’s storage buffer and the scarcity of viable export alternatives would “rapidly trigger upstream shut-ins across major southwest fields.”

“With production near 3.3 mbd and exports around 1.5 mbd, as much as half of national output could be at risk if the hub remains offline, and the previously assumed 20‑day buffer would vanish from day one,” they said in a note published Sunday.

Iran’s enormous scale and mountainous topography mean the U.S. mobilizing any conventional ground forces in the region would require hundreds of thousands of troops, according to Alex Plitsas, a senior non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank.

“Any use of ground forces would likely be limited to special operations forces for specific missions,” Plitsas said Wednesday in a note, without referring specifically to Iran’s Kharg Island.

— CNBC’s Michael Bloom contributed to this report.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Friday brushed aside concerns that the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz because of the Iran war, which has spiked oil prices, would continue being a problem for the U.S. and the world for much longer.

Iran has been “exercising sheer desperation in the Straits of Hormuz,” Hegseth said at a Pentagon press briefing.

“We have been dealing with it, and don’t need to worry about it,” he said.

The trading price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil on Friday morning was around $93 per barrel. A day before the war began on Feb. 28, a barrel of WTI was selling for about $67.

Hegseth criticized media reports that claimed that before attacking Iran, the United States military lacked a plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which is the world’s most critical oil shipping chokepoint.

“Of course, for decades, Iran has threatened shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. This is always what they do, hold the strait hostage,” he said.

“We planned for it. We recognize it,” Hegseth told a reporter who asked him why the Pentagon had not planned for the strait being choked off to traffic.

“Ultimately, we want to do it sequentially in the way that makes the most sense for what we want to achieve.”

Neither Hegseth nor Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine said how the U.S. would open up the strait to the traffic of oil tankers and other ships.

On Thursday morning, Energy Secretary Chris Wright told CNBC that the U.S. Navy is not ready to escort oil tankers through the strait. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, hours later, told Sky News that the U.S. Navy, and possibly an international coalition, would begin escorting ships through the strait as soon as “militarily possible.”

Asked how soon the Strait of Hormuz would be open to traffic, Hegseth said Friday, “The only thing prohibiting transit in the straits right now is Iran shooting at shipping.”

“We have a plan for every option here,” he said. “We’re working with our interagency partners. That’s not a strait we’re going to allow to remain contested or a lack of flow of international goods.”

Caine, when asked about removing mines from the Strait of Hormuz laid by Iran, said, “We retain a range of options to solve a whole variety of problems.”

Hegseth predicted, again, that “soon and very soon, all of Iran’s defense companies will be destroyed.” He said that as of two days ago, every company that builds components of Iran’s ballistic missiles “has been functionally defeated.”

The Defense secretary speculated that Iran’s “new so-called, not-so-supreme leader,” Mojtaba Khamenei, “is wounded and likely disfigured.”

“He put out a statement yesterday, a weak one, actually, but there was no voice and there was no video,” Hegseth said.

Hegseth and Caine’s vagueness in offering either details of a possible solution to the strait’s closure, or a timeline for such a solution came as RBC Capital Markets, in a note on Friday, said, “There is significant skepticism that a robust US Navy tanker escort service will be operational soon due to capacity constraints as well as the fact that Iran’s enhanced military capabilities will pose a bigger challenge than the US faced during the Tanker Wars of the 1980s.”

The note also said that a $20 billion insurance promoted by the U.S. International Development Finance Corp., to encourage oil tankers and other commercial vessels to begin ffic to begin transiting the straight “similarly … is not generating much enthusiasm as it only covers the roughly 22 miles of sea lanes in the Strait, not the surrounding waterways, and offers neither casualty nor environmental coverage.”

“Above all, we are struck by the fact that a number of Washington-based security analysts seem to be working with longer-duration timelines than market participants residing outside the Beltway,” RBS’s Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy and MENA research, wrote.

Oil prices rose on Friday morning as investors continued to assess the impact of the U.S.-Iran war on global energy markets.

By 6:58 a.m. ET, global benchmark Brent crude futures added 4.5% to trade at $89.23 a barrel, notching a fresh 52-week high and levels not seen in nearly two years. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude futures were last seen 6.3% higher at $86.06, hitting their highest level since April 2024.

Prices dipped overnight as investors continued to assess the impact of the U.S.-Iran war on global energy supply.

Crude prices are on track for their biggest weekly gain since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022.

The spike comes as the U.S.-Iran conflict spreads across the Middle East, disrupting energy production and bringing traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping route, to a near standstill.

On Friday morning, the Financial Times reported that Qatar’s energy minister said the war in the Middle East could see Gulf energy exporters stop shipments within days. Saad al-Kaabi told the FT that crude prices could reach $150 a barrel in the coming weeks if oil tankers were unable to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

Prices briefly dipped overnight after the U.S. issued a 30-day waiver to India — the world’s third-largest oil importer — to resume purchases of Russian oil. Washington had earlier imposed 25% “penalty” tariffs on India for buying Russian crude, which were revoked last month. The retreat in prices also came after news agency Reuters, citing an unnamed White House official, reported that the U.S. Treasury is planning to announce measures to curb energy price spikes, including potential interventions in the oil futures market.

The average price for a gallon of regular gasoline jumped nearly 27 cents since in the week to Thursday to $3.25, according to data from U.S. travel organization AAA.

The conflict between Iran and the U.S. enters its seventh day on Friday. In a press conference on Thursday, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the U.S. had “only just begun to fight.”

“Iran is hoping that we cannot sustain this, which is a really bad miscalculation,” he told reporters.

“There’s no shortage of American will here … If you think you’ve seen something, just wait. The amount of combat power that’s still flowing, that’s still coming, that we’ll be able to project over Iran is at multiples of what it currently is right now when you add up our capabilities and those of the Israeli Defense Forces.”

“Contrary to what consensus thinks, I think higher energy prices could actually be deflationary for the U.S.,” Atakan Bakiskan, chief U.S. economist at Berenberg, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” on Friday.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision to label Anthropic a “Supply-Chain Risk to National Security” on Friday resulted in more questions than answers.

“It’s all very puzzling,” Herbert Lin, a senior research scholar at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, told CNBC in an interview.

Anthropic is the only American company ever to be publicly named a supply chain risk, as the designation has traditionally been used against foreign adversaries. But the company hasn’t received any official declaration beyond social media posts.

A formal designation will require defense vendors and contractors to certify that they don’t use Anthropic’s models in their work with the Pentagon.

The dispute centered around how Anthropic’s artificial intelligence models could be used by the military. The Department of Defense wanted Anthropic to grant the agency unfettered access to its Claude models across all lawful purposes, while Anthropic wanted assurance that its technology would not be tapped for fully autonomous weapons or domestic mass surveillance.

With no agreement reached by Friday’s deadline, President Donald Trump directed federal agencies to “immediately cease” all use of Anthropic’s technology, and said there would be a six-month phaseout period for agencies like the DOD.

Experts told CNBC the supply chain risk designation is highly unusual, especially since the U.S. and Israel began carrying out strikes in Iran just hours later. A group of retired defense officials, policy leaders and executives wrote to Congress on Thursday, defending Anthropic and calling the Trump administration’s designation a “dangerous precedent.”

Anthropic’s models are still being used to support U.S. military operations in Iran, even after the company was blacklisted, as CNBC previously reported.

Talks between Anthropic and the DOD are now reportedly back on, according to the Financial Times, but there are still big questions hanging over the issue as of Thursday.

Why is the U.S. government still using Claude?

Stanford’s Lin doesn’t understand why the DOD is still using Anthropic’s models in sensitive settings if they pose such a threat. If the Trump administration really sees Anthropic as a risk to national security, he said, it wouldn’t make sense to phase out the models over an extended period of time.

“OK, wait a minute, they’re a really dangerous player for U.S. national security, so you’re going to use them for another six months? Huh?” Lin said. 

Michael Horowitz, a senior fellow for technology and innovation at the Council on Foreign Relations, said it’s “especially notable” that Anthropic’s models were used to support the U.S. military action in Iran. He said “there’s no clearer signal” of how much the Pentagon values the technology.

“Even in a situation where there is this intense feud between the company and the Pentagon, they are using their technology in the most important military operation that the United States is conducting,” he said. 

Transitioning away from Anthropic toward a new vendor takes time and comes at a significant cost in terms of efficiency, said Jacquelyn Schneider, a Hargrove Hoover fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

Until recently, Anthropic was the only AI company approved to deploy its models across the agency’s classified networks. OpenAI and Elon Musk’s xAI received clearance, but their systems can’t be deployed or adopted overnight.

What’s the actual threat?

By designating Anthropic a supply chain risk, the DOD is suggesting that the company is “really bad” for U.S. national security, Lin said. But he stressed that the agency hasn’t clearly outlined what kind of threat the company poses. 

“They don’t point to any technical failing, they don’t point to any hack,” Lin said. “They say things like ‘They’re arrogant,’ and ‘We don’t want you telling the DoD what to do in some hypothetical situation that hasn’t happened yet.'”

Lin said the other punishment that Hegseth was threatening to impose on Anthropic, invoking the Defense Production Act, also contradicts the idea that the company threatens national security. 

The Defense Production Act allows the president to control domestic industries under emergency authority when it’s in the interest of national security. It could essentially compel Anthropic to let the Pentagon use its technology. 

Horowitz said he thinks the clash between Anthropic and the DOD is “masquerading” as a policy dispute. 

Months earlier, venture capitalist and White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks criticized the company for “running a sophisticated regulatory capture strategy based on fear-mongering,” after an essay published by an executive, and conservatives have repeatedly accused Anthropic of pushing “woke AI.”

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei took a different approach than other tech executives, avoiding getting cozy with the Trump administration in its early days.

“This feels to me like a dispute that is about politics and personalities,” Horowitz said. 

Is an official designation on the way?

Anthropic hasn’t been designated a supply chain risk by any official measure, and there’s an open question as to if or when the company should expect one. Defense contractors have to decide whether they will follow Hegseth’s directive on social media or wait for more formal guidance. 

Several executives told CNBC that their companies are moving away from Anthropic’s models, and a venture capitalist said a number of portfolio companies are switching “out of an abundance of caution.” But others, including C3 AI Chairman Tom Siebel, said he doesn’t see a “need to mitigate” the technology “until it gets litigated.” 

Schneider said businesses are rational, and if they think it’s high risk to work with Anthropic, whether it’s formally declared a supply chain risk or not, they’re going to hedge and look for other partners.

“There’s all sorts of decisions that have been made within the Trump administration that, by law, require more codification,” Schneider said. “Even the example of moving from DoD to [Department of War]. That by law needs more codification, but all the contractors are using DoW.”

Even so, Samir Jain, vice president of policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, said social media posts likely aren’t enough to actually cause a designation.

“There’s a process that the statute requires, including an actual finding that Anthropic presents national security risks if it’s part of the supply chain,” he said in an interview. “I don’t think, factually, that that predicate could possibly be met here.”

Anthropic said in a statement Friday that it will challenge “any supply chain risk designation in court.”

Does this have anything to do with the U.S. strikes on Iran?

For Schneider, the war in Iran now looms large over the spat between Anthropic and the DOD. She said she’s left wondering whether the two conflicts were happening in parallel, or if they were somehow related. 

“Obviously, you’re not going to walk away from technologies that are deeply embedded in your wartime processes right before you go to war,” Schneider said.

She said planning a military operation of that magnitude would have required “a lot of sleepless nights,” so she was surprised the DOD was willing to spend such a “remarkable amount of energy” on a public clash ahead of the initial attack.

What happens next?

As the war in Iran stretches into its sixth day, Anthropic’s path forward with the DOD remains a big mystery.  

Horowitz said he would bet that the six-month off-boarding period will become a “a locus for some re-examination” within the Pentagon, especially since members of Congress and broader public markets have shown so much interest in the dispute. 

Lin expressed a similar sentiment, and said he wouldn’t bet on Anthropic’s models being out of the DOD a year from now.

Schneider is less convinced. 

“I wish I had a more definitive thought about where this is all going to go, but everything is so unprecedented,” she said. When it comes to historical examples or analogous cases, Schneider said: “I don’t have those. It’s just super limited.”

The DOD declined to comment. Anthropic didn’t provide a comment.

WATCH: Anthropic tops $19 billion in annual revenue rate

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei is back at the negotiating table with the U.S. Department of Defense after the breakdown of talks on Friday over the use of the company’s AI tools by the military, according to The Financial Times. 

Amodei is in talks with Emil Michael, under-secretary of defense for research and engineering, in a last-ditch effort to reach an agreement on the terms governing the Pentagon’s access to Anthropic’s Claude models, the Times reported, citing anonymous sources with knowledge of the matter.

Discussions fell apart Friday, with President Donald Trump directing federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s tools, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth saying he would designate the company a supply-chain risk to national security.

Last week, Michael had attacked Amodei, calling him a “liar” with a “God complex,” in an X post.

Agreeing to a new contract would enable the U.S. military to continue using Anthropic’s technology, which has reportedly been utilized in Washington’s war with Iran. 

Claude became the first major model deployed in the government’s classified networks through a $200 million contract awarded by the DoD to Anthropic, but the company later sought guarantees that its tools would not be used in domestic surveillance or autonomous weapons. The Pentagon had demanded that the military be allowed to employ the technology for any lawful use.

In a Friday memo seen by FT, Amodei reportedly told staff that near the end of negotiations with the Defense Department, it had offered to accept Anthropic’s terms if they deleted a “specific phrase about ‘analysis of bulk acquired data'” — a line he said, “exactly matched this scenario we were most worried about.” 

Amodei also wrote in his note that messaging from the Pentagon and OpenAI, which struck a new deal with the Defense Department on Friday, was “just straight up lies about these issues or tries to confuse them.” 

The timing of OpenAI’s deal with the Pentagon, announced within hours of the White House decrying Anthropic, had caused a public backlash, with Claude seeing a surge of app downloads while ChatGPT reportedly saw app uninstallations surge.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman later said that his company “shouldn’t have rushed” its deal and outlined revisions to its own safeguards with how the Defense Department can use its technology. 

In a post on X, Altman further addressed the controversy, saying: “In my conversations over the weekend, I reiterated that Anthropic should not be designated as a [supply chain risk], and that we hope the [Department of Defense] offers them the same terms we’ve agreed to.”

Anthropic was founded in 2021 by a group of former OpenAI staff and researchers, who left the firm after disagreements over its direction, with the company marketing itself as a “safety-first” alternative.

Government officials have for months criticized Anthropic for allegedly being overly concerned with AI safety.

A tech industry group, whose members include Nvidia, Google and Anthropic, had sent a letter to Hegseth on Wednesday expressing concern over his designating a U.S. company as a supply-chain risk.

The Defense Department and Anthropic did not immediately respond to a CNBC request for comment on their reported negotiations.