Trump 2.0

[bjn]

Surely occupying Khark only "controls" the oil in the sense of stopping its export. no oil comes out of the ground on Khark. Iran will just shut the pipes on the mainland.

Or am I misunderstanding ??

It's stupid. Presumably the intent is to act as economic leverage on Iran, because it would prevent Iran from exporting most of its oil.

But that would be a really bad way of achieving that effect.

It would risk casualties in capturing the island. Presumably Trump wants an Iranian regime that's friendly. And would want the ability to hand a working facility as some leverage to the Iranian regime. So there's a massive risk of damage to the facility. And it would need garrisoning, so a nice target for any Iranian attacks.

However the economic leverage from holding Kharg Island would be preventing Iranian oil reaching any markets. The USN could sit in the Gulf of Oman, and interdict any tankers from Iran (not just Kharg Island) with a far lower risk of casualties and far easier to modulate the blockade and turn it on or off.

As pointed out above, to get the ships with the marines on it to Kharg Island means getting them through the straights. That will be contested and could go very badly with a few lucky drone strikes.

[jimbob]

Surely occupying Khark only "controls" the oil in the sense of stopping its export. no oil comes out of the ground on Khark. Iran will just shut the pipes on the mainland.

Or am I misunderstanding ??

It's stupid. Presumably the intent is to act as economic leverage on Iran, because it would prevent Iran from exporting most of its oil.

But that would be a really bad way of achieving that effect.

It would risk casualties in capturing the island. Presumably Trump wants an Iranian regime that's friendly. And would want the ability to hand a working facility as some leverage to the Iranian regime. So there's a massive risk of damage to the facility. And it would need garrisoning, so a nice target for any Iranian attacks.

However the economic leverage from holding Kharg Island would be preventing Iranian oil reaching any markets. The USN could sit in the Gulf of Oman, and interdict any tankers from Iran (not just Kharg Island) with a far lower risk of casualties and far easier to modulate the blockade and turn it on or off.

As pointed out above, to get the ships with the marines on it to Kharg Island means getting them through the straights. That will be contested and could go very badly with a few lucky drone strikes.

Absolutely. I was wondering whether to mention that, but I was looking more at what goals it would further.

[Martin Y]

Trump makes a remark that Jimmy Carr might think twice about.

I know it's not funny, but also... that was quite funny.

My regret is no reporter followed up by asking if his surprise attack on Iran was "a date that would live in infamy".

[Formerly AvP]

I doubt if it would be a 'landing craft up the beach' D-Day style job, because of the problem of getting the ships through the strait. But the Amphibious Ready Group has helicopter landing capabilities, and it would be possible to fly in other air-landing capable forces: in theory there could be an airborne assault on Kharg island, or some of the islands in the strait. These islands might also be attackable by the ARG's fast hovercraft. But all of these risk casualties, and of course sustaining the troops after their landing is a another problem. Another ARG, led by USS Boxer, has been despatched from San Diego, with its Marines on board, and I think it will take them 3 weeks to get there. The Iwo Jima ARG is in the Western Hemisphere, I think in the Caribbean, but would need to extend its tour of duty to take part. Even all three would only be an extended brigade, 6 or 7k troops. The IRGC probably has about 120,000 men.
I think only the Iranian army would have the ability to bring about regime change. A number of Army generals were killed in the first strikes - perhaps these were who 'we had been talking to' as Trump implied.

Note: my military experience confined to playing board games