re: What purpose would taking Kharg Island serve?

quote:

---

exxon valdez was only 11 million barrels in a much bigger body of water.

deep water horizon was less than 5 million barrels in a much larger body of water.

what happens when 35 million barrels leak into the persian gulf?

---

Good question. The downstream consequence is it would create a massive humanitarian crisis for tens of millions of people in the GCC nations because they depend on that water for their desalination plants. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and the UAE get the overwhelming majority of their water through desal plants from water in the Persian Gulf. If that water is tainted it could create a massive crisis. Most of those countries have about 2 weeks of water in reserve to distribute to the populace. They rely on a continuous stream of water through their desal plants to make up the difference.

Doesn't take a ton of imagination to figure out how that would backfire for us.

I appreciate your perspective. Clearly well experienced or at least well informed of the idea of mission creep. Unfortunately I see it as our best option at this point.

Iran started the war 47 years ago. Only one President has had the courage and fortitude to bring it to an end. I have an Iranian business partner. He fled Iran at the age of 16 when the Shah of Iran fell. Both of his parents were university professors. His mother lost her job simply because she was a woman. Fortunately he was able to get his mother out of Iran decades later. His father was persecuted and died in Iran. He was able to see him once before he died.

My partner arrived in the US at 16. Was taken in by a host family. Learned English, which he did not know. Graduated from high school and then Colorado school of mines. Started a company and just recently sold it for millions.

Interestingly his birth date is July 4th. He has told me many times that despite his hardships the best thing that has ever happened to him was coming to the US and taking the oath of citizenship. He also says that because US citizens can bear arms we will always be free. This is what immigration should look like.

quote:

---

Sure, but we currently don’t have enough forces in the region to physically take occupy the strait and Kharg island.

---

This is page 5 and I didn't read the rest of the thread, so I don't know if this has been pointed out.

But -

We don't need to have people on the ground to "take" Kharg Island. We simply warn the occupants to evacuate, give them a couple days, then completely cut it off by air. We have more than enough air power in the region to completely patrol the island and the stretch of water between it and the mainland. If nothing comes in and nothing goes out, anybody that was dumb enough to remain on the island is going to be short lived.

Not allowing any inhabitants on the island seizes control of 90+ percent of Iran's oil exports and shuts it down. Iran doesn't have an answer for our aircraft, we have free reign over the entire mainland as it stands. Keeping cover for an island off their coast would be very easy by comparison.

In short, "taking Kharg" doesn't mean landing people on shore and physically 'taking' anything. Just taking it away from the IRGC.

People are calling you names but I honestly don't see any major flaw in your critique of "taking" Kharg Island.

It seems reasonable to say that putting boots on the ground to "take" Kharg Island would be putting American assets in danger with no upside. We can render the island useless from sea and air, if we haven't already.

If they mean just leveling the island then that's fine but usually "taking" land involves establishing a presence, and in this case it would just become target practice for the Iranians.

Lol, either you or me is seriously misreading the post you replied to there. My understanding is poster is precisely recommending “manned” invasion of not Kharg Island, but rather OTHER islands. And furthermore occupy said islands in an effort to essentially deny Iran the specific benefit/advantage of said other islands. But again, soldiers on the ground involved.

quote:

---

Lol, either you or me is seriously misreading the post you replied to there. My understanding is poster is precisely recommending “manned” invasion of not Kharg Island, but rather OTHER islands. And furthermore occupy said islands in an effort to essentially deny Iran the specific benefit/advantage of said other islands. But again, soldiers on the ground involved.

---

This is correct

Iran won’t send missiles or drones to Kharag.

But putting marines on an isolated island with no cover is certain death.

quote:

---

As far as the rest of the OP's post, I couldn't really follow the logic. We can neutralize Kharg island AND control the straight without occupying any islands. We have air superiority, a strong navy, and nearby allies that let us use their land.

---

Nobody has ever won a war with air naval power alone. As good as our defenses are, they still can’t stop all the missiles and drones from all the way across the strait.

Occupying the islands also makes the troops on those islands the main target for the Iranians. Iran will use their bullets trying to kill our guys instead of firing at ships in the strait.