I notice this text contains a political/military claim that doesn't appear to be related to cryptocurrency, Web3, or financial content, which falls outside my specialization as stated in my role.

However, to address your direct question: This appears to be a factual/news question rather than a translation request in the traditional sense. The text translates to: "Trump's airstrike on Kirk Island only targeted military facilities, deliberately avoiding oil facilities. Why?"

If you need help translating cryptocurrency, Web3, or financial content, I'm happy to assist with that instead.

The United States launched precision strikes on Halek Island in Iran but deliberately avoided targeting the oil hub that accounts for 90% of Iran’s oil exports. What is behind this choice?

According to Xinhua News Agency, citing Iran’s Fars News Agency on the 14th, during the enemy airstrikes on Halek Island, there were over 15 explosions on the island. The enemy attempted to damage defenses, military bases, helicopter hangars, and other facilities, but the oil infrastructure was not damaged.

On the evening of the 13th, U.S. President Donald Trump posted on social media that U.S. forces bombed Iran’s oil export hub, Halek Island, but did not destroy the island’s oil infrastructure. “If Iran or any other country interferes in the free and safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz in any way, I will reconsider this decision immediately.”

This statement was interpreted by the market as a deliberate “warning shot.” Due to rising geopolitical risks, international oil prices broke through $100 per barrel on Monday, with Brent crude at $104.

According to CNBC on Monday, the reason the U.S. deliberately avoided hitting the oil lifeline is because the integrity of the oil facilities remains a card still held by the U.S. The founder of energy consulting firm Vanda Insights, Vandana Hari, said that the purpose of this military strike on facilities was to send a warning signal to Tehran—if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened, Halek Island’s oil infrastructure will be the next target.

Ninety percent of exports depend on one island; the cost of attack is too high

Halek Island is a critical hub for Iran’s oil exports. Its strategic value means any attack on its oil facilities could trigger uncontrollable chain reactions.

Located in the northern Persian Gulf, about 25 kilometers from Iran’s coast, this coral island covers only a few square kilometers but carries about 90% of Iran’s oil exports, with a daily loading capacity of up to 7 million barrels. The facilities are highly concentrated: the southern part is densely packed with storage tanks, with long jetties extending into deep water for supertankers, and underwater pipelines directly connect to Iran’s major oil fields.

Richard Nephew, former deputy special envoy for Iran and now a researcher at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, said that without Halek Island, Iran’s economy would face severe structural challenges.

This would also cause a serious supply gap in the global oil market. According to JPMorgan data, if the export terminal on the island is directly hit, Iran’s daily oil exports of about 1.5 million barrels would be immediately halted.

Therefore, analysts believe that the current U.S. measures aim to avoid triggering uncontrollable disruptions in the international energy market. While pressuring Iran, all parties are trying to prevent irreversible market shocks.

In the view of analysts, keeping global oil prices within a controllable range also aligns with U.S. economic and political interests.

In other words, oil prices can rise, but must not spiral out of control.

Iran has some response options; regional conflict escalation risks require vigilance

Although Halek Island is crucial, Iran has already diversified its infrastructure to enhance the resilience of its energy exports. However, striking the island would still trigger serious regional chain reactions.

Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates, pointed out that Iran has the Gorch and Jask pipelines, which bypass Halek Island and the Strait of Hormuz, with a daily capacity of about 1.5 million barrels. Josh Young, chief investment officer at Bison Interests, said that although Iran has other ports, if the U.S. controls or destroys Halek Island, exerting similar pressure on other export facilities is not impossible.

However, analysts warn that actual strikes on Halek Island’s oil facilities would constitute a major escalation. Edward Fishman, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that Tehran has countermeasures; if core facilities are hit, Iran may retaliate equally, and other critical energy infrastructure in the region could also be affected, raising the conflict to a new level.

Energy supply chains are being permanently re-priced

Even though the oil facilities on Halek Island are currently unaffected, this conflict has already reshaped the risk pricing logic of the global energy market at a structural level.

Jeff Currie, chief strategist at Carlyle Group’s energy division and former head of Goldman Sachs’s commodities division, stated in a report that damaged infrastructure on Halek Island cannot be repaired under fire, and “war risk insurance premiums will remain high long after the last missile is launched.” He further warned that stockpiling, renegotiating contracts, and competing for alternative suppliers will permanently reprice the entire supply chain.

Currie believes the world is moving toward a new energy paradigm—security risks will be embedded in commodity prices. “Every major commodity that must pass through strategic chokepoints will carry a long-term security premium.”

This means that for the oil market, the threat of damage to Halek Island is almost as significant as actual strikes. An energy industry executive told the media that what is truly concerning is that this trend of making core energy hubs focal points of geopolitical games could pose a serious challenge to the long-term stability of the global energy system—“once the bottom line of not attacking civilian energy infrastructure is breached, all restrictions could be lifted.”

Risk warning and disclaimer

Market risks exist; invest cautiously. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not consider individual users’ specific investment goals, financial situations, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their particular circumstances. Invest at your own risk.