Kharg Island is still processing oil for shipment.
2500 Marines are being sent into the theater. Perhaps Kharg will be their destination.
Iranian military targets on Kharg have been hit.
Oil has not been hit by US forces, and no oil has been spilt.
Well, capturing Kharg Island would certainly provide leverage over any Iranian regime.
DB2
No doubt about that.
I expect Kharg is thoroughly booby trapped and manned by loyalist troops ready to go full martyrdom to get as many expert marines as possible.
1 Like
Yeah, kind of like Fallujah – but that’s what Marines are trained for…
DB2
The Marines are possibly for the embassies. Bhenghazi anyone
Would it? We’re currently allowing - dare I say welcoming - Iranian oil exports right now. Because it keeps the price of oil from rising even further
There’s a category of situations I like to think of a “hand grenade in an elevator” scenarios. Picture two guys having a very heated argument in an elevator, resorting to threats and perhaps fighting. You give one of the guys a hand grenade. Is that guy now more likely to win the argument? On the one hand, he now has a powerful weapon that the other guy doesn’t have. On the other hand, he can’t use it just to hurt the other guy - he’ll hurt himself just as badly. Does that help him?
Seizing Kharg Island only gives us leverage if we’re willing to possibly shut down oil exports. But if those ships are the only ones that are making it through Hormuz right now, that would have a really sharp impact on oil markets - which is probably Iran’s greatest weapon against the U.S. right now. So….how much leverage does that really get us? Are we willing to pull the pin if we’re right there in the elevator with the other guy?
10 Likes
Exactly. Iran would not be able to export without our consent. Any Iranian regime would have to work with the US to keep their economy going. That’s the leverage. What we would do with it is another question.
DB2
But again - it’s the grenade in the elevator. Does it really give you leverage, if you can’t hurt the other guy without hurting yourself? We already can stop Iran from exporting oil. But we haven’t blocked Iranian ships from transiting the Strait, because we don’t want to take the hit of even higher oil prices.
So what does it gain us to seize Kharg Island if Iran already knows that we aren’t going to materially interfere with the flow of oil?
6 Likes
It could if the pain is relative or asymmetrical. Let’s say it’s months down the road and there is a different, but not particularly friendly regime in place. Ships are moving normally through the area. We want the regime to do (or not do) X. We can cut off all or part of their exports to be persuasive. Their exports could be restricted back to the levels where they were during the sanction years (which the world lived with adequately but inflicted much more economic pain on Iran). Leverage.
DB2
Wait - you’re thinking that we might station troops on Kharg Island for months? I must be misunderstanding the proposal.
There’s not much leverage to be gained in taking Kharg Island while the war is ongoing, and Iran is threatening Hormuz traffic to the point where oil prices are very high across the globe. If traffic returned to normal and oil prices fell substantially, then it might be “safe” again for us to try to take Kharg Island - but at that point, isn’t the war over (one way or another)? Is there a scenario where traffic is flowing normally and we’re still fighting the war and might seize the island?
Seems like even then, the better military strategy would be to seize the tankers or prevent them from leaving the Gulf, rather than try to use ground troops to seize and hold an island right off the coast of Iran after we’re no longer providing aerial support through constant bombardment. Or is the idea that we seize the island now and try to hold it indefinitely even after the war has ended? Why wouldn’t Iran just keep sending wave after wave of drones to attack our troops there?
I think I’ve missed something.
5 Likes
You’ve been Bobbed! 
JimA
2 Likes
As albaby points out so well, leverage goes both ways. It isn’t clear to me this would be a winning move.
But even best case, it still might not provide much leverage. In the 1980 Iran-Iraq war, Iraq attacked Kharg Island extensively which hampered Iranian oil exports at times but never shut them down. Iran adapted by using dispersed loading points and found other means of export.
And leverage for what exactly? We don’t know what the victory conditions are. The POTUS stated he will only accept “complete and unconditional surrender.” Capturing Kharg Island will not accomplish this. But at other times other goals have been offered, like disable Iran’s ability to fund extremist groups or dismantling their ballistic missile capability. I don’t see how the dots connect.
1 Like
Bob doesn’t show up here to make stupid personal comments.
Start adding something instead of being small.
Take the high road.
This is worth seeing if you have fb.
Yeah, that you levy a tax on Iran before loading each tanker full of oil. Direct deposit to a certain someone’s personal offshore bank account, of course.
5 Likes
I am I crazy to suggest we figure out why we’re going to spill American blood and waste treasure before we do it?
I feel like I’m living in upside down world. The narrative is that it is crucially important that young Americans die on Kharg island, but no one can explain why they need to die.
8 Likes
Trained for suicide? This adventure has no payback. It will not topple the Iranian regime. It will just cause more ships not willing to go through the Strait. And it will keep oil prices high for a long time.
I don’t know if it’s something we should/could/would do, but it is a long-term proposal. Looking down the line, the shooting has stopped. We are not going to occupy the country, so what are the ways to influence whatever the regime is? One of them is economic (this is METaR after all). The key to Iran’s economy is oil, and the key to the oil is Kharg Island.
That is more along the lines I was thinking.
DB2
That’s an important question. Leverage only matters if you have a plan for using it, and completely understand the consequences of exercising it. I don’t have much confidence the US has thought this through.
Lots of people are still hanging their hat on regime change. I’m pessimistic. Who’s more likely to stand up and challenge their authoritarian rulers? The Iranians, or the US Congress? Regime change ain’t easy.
3 Likes
But…how could that possibly work? You can’t just leave soldiers in Iranian territory to defend occupied land. Iran would just send wave after wave of drones, or even just attack with conventional infantry. You have to maintain supply lines, air cover, naval forces to prevent amphibious assault, and a ton of other support forces in place.
That’s not a thing you can maintain after the war - it’s a thing you can only do during the war, when you have enough firepower in the region to protect that forward position and keep Iran from just droning them. If we’ve got boots on the ground on Kharg Island, the war will be ongoing until they leave. Which doesn’t seem like it does anything different for us, or anything we couldn’t achieve more easily through other means (like just stopping the Iranian tankers from entering or leaving Hormuz).
8 Likes