Trump’s Iran Gambit: Island Assault Risks Unforeseen Mayhem

Trump’s Iran Gambit: Island Assault Risks Unforeseen Mayhem

The idea of U.S. troops taking Iran’s Kharg Island, a vital oil hub, is being discussed. However, a closer look reveals this plan could be far more complicated and dangerous than it appears. Military experts warn that such an operation might lead to unintended consequences and severe risks for American forces.

A Risky Assault Plan

Taking Kharg Island doesn’t require a traditional Marine landing. One suggested method involves a helicopter assault. This would start with drones destroying enemy positions. The island’s runway has already been hit, making it unusable for planes but suitable for helicopters. The exact size of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) garrison there is unknown.

Kharg Island itself is quite small, about 8 kilometers by 4 kilometers. A large part of it, 60%, is a petrochemical refinery producing propane and other chemicals. The rest is used for shipping and storing oil. This makes the island a potential fire hazard, as the refinery could easily explode.

The Oil Factor and Strategic Blunders

A key issue is the oil. Donald Trump once stated that any ship carrying Iranian oil was immune to seizure. This complicates seizing the island and its oil. Many ships in the harbor are foreign-owned and could leave if they knew an attack was coming. Iran would likely order these ships to depart, or the U.S. Navy would give them a warning. This would give Iran time to shut off the oil flow to the island.

If the U.S. takes Kharg Island without oil, what have they gained? The goal seems to be taking the island and its oil, not just stopping oil shipments. However, a simple drone strike on pump stations could disrupt oil flow without destroying the entire island. This raises questions about the purpose of a full-scale invasion.

The ‘Video Op’ Concern

One expert suggests the only real reason to land troops might be for a symbolic victory. This would be about U.S. soldiers raising the American flag on the island, similar to historical events. However, the enemy has a say in how such an operation unfolds. While U.S. forces might see a clear path, Iran could prepare traps.

During a publicized amphibious landing, Iran could plant landmines or set up improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Even with advanced surveillance, hidden dangers could exist. Every light post or structure could be rigged. This unknown threat level is a major concern.

Civilian Casualties and Strategic Questions

The island is home to about 8,000 oil workers and their families. If an attack is imminent, these civilians might try to flee. The question arises: would U.S. forces fire on small boats leaving the island? This could lead to the tragic killing of civilians.

The mission’s purpose needs clear answers. Is it to destroy the facility? If so, Iran might destroy it themselves to prevent U.S. capture. Is it a show of force, a landing followed by a quick withdrawal? Or is it a long-term occupation, which would invite constant attacks, much like historical sieges?

Historical Parallels and Escalation Risks

Looking at history, island assaults can become prolonged struggles. Places like Khesan or Wake Island faced constant bombardment and became quagmires. Occupying Kharg Island could turn it into a similar trap, with continuous attacks from the Iranian mainland.

The U.S. military might feel pressured to expand operations from the island to the mainland if attacks persist. This could draw the U.S. into a much larger conflict. The current naval assets, like hovercraft and landing craft, might not be sufficient for such a large-scale invasion or sustained occupation. Bringing in more troops and equipment would take weeks or months.

The UAE Factor and Population Imbalance

The UAE might also see an opportunity to reclaim islands like Abu Musa. However, the population difference between the UAE and Iran is staggering. Iran has 93 million people, while the UAE has only 500,000. Iran’s military forces, including the IRGC and its militia, number over a million. This imbalance means any conflict could be devastating for the UAE if they act alone.

Iran’s Potential Response

If the U.S. occupies islands, Iran could retaliate in various ways. They might allow U.S. forces to establish a presence for a few weeks, only to make the Strait of Hormuz impassable. Insurance companies would likely refuse to cover ships passing through, effectively closing the strait. Iran could also orchestrate daily attacks, sinking one ship at a time.

The scenario could resemble scenes from movies like Apocalypse Now, with constant rocket and mortar attacks. Small, mobile units could launch rockets from pickup trucks, hitting U.S. positions relentlessly. This kind of sustained, low-level harassment can wear down even the best-equipped forces. Drones and anti-ship missiles would also pose a significant threat.

Furthermore, Iran has combat swimmers and high-speed boats that could launch surprise attacks on beaches. The effectiveness of U.S. technology against such asymmetric tactics is questionable.

Leadership and Strategic Missteps

Statements like sharing control of the Strait of Hormuz with Iran are seen as deeply flawed by some military professionals. The idea of conducting an operation without fully considering the enemy’s response is described as a series of strategic blunders. History shows that military actions require careful planning and an understanding of potential enemy reactions.

Ignoring historical lessons, like the prolonged sieges of Khesan or the eventual capture of Wake Island, could lead to disaster. While the U.S. has air power to prevent capture, the risk of becoming bogged down in a costly conflict is very real. The core issue remains: the potential plan for Kharg Island seems to lack thorough strategic thinking, potentially leading to significant and avoidable problems.

Why This Matters

The discussion around taking Kharg Island highlights the complex geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. It shows how military actions, even those seemingly aimed at specific objectives, can have far-reaching and unpredictable consequences. The potential for civilian casualties, unintended escalation, and prolonged conflict are serious concerns that demand careful consideration by policymakers.

Implications and Future Outlook

If the U.S. were to attempt such an operation, it could further destabilize the region. It might also draw the U.S. into a protracted conflict with Iran, which has a large population and significant military capabilities. The economic impact, especially on global oil markets, could be severe. The future outlook suggests that any military action in this sensitive region must be meticulously planned, considering all possible outcomes and the potential for asymmetric warfare.

Historical Context

The Strait of Hormuz has long been a critical chokepoint for global oil trade. Control of this waterway has been a strategic goal for regional powers for decades. Past conflicts and tensions in the Persian Gulf offer valuable lessons about the dangers of escalation and the resilience of determined adversaries. Understanding these historical precedents is crucial for navigating current challenges.

Source: This is the sign Trump is preparing to take Iran's Kharg island with US troops | Malcolm Nance (YouTube)