The U.S. Military Aims to Capture Hark Island: Military Experts Analyze Three Possibilities

The Trump administration in the United States was revealed on the 20th to be significantly increasing troop levels in the Middle East, including the deployment of ground forces. This has intensified discussions within the U.S. military about the possibility of seizing the Iranian oil export hub of Khark Island.

U.S. military experts have speculated that there are three potential paths for the U.S. military to seize Khark Island, but each path is fraught with danger and high risk. Furthermore, even if the U.S. military successfully captures the island, it would not mean "mission accomplished," as there would be at least two major headaches for the Trump administration to deal with afterward.

Is U.S. military strength sufficient?

Multiple sources have disclosed that the U.S. is increasing its military presence in the Middle East, including amphibious assault ships and Marine Corps personnel.

Reports from the U.S. on the 20th indicated that three warships, including the USS Boxer amphibious assault ship, and approximately 2,500 Marines have departed from California, with an expected arrival in the Middle East in at least three weeks.

Days earlier, the Pentagon had dispatched the USS Tripoli amphibious assault ship carrying the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit from Japan to the Middle East, with an estimated size of up to 5,000 personnel, expected to arrive within the next couple of days.

U.S. military experts believe that the current strengthening of military forces may be aimed at "clearing" the Strait of Hormuz or preparing for the seizure of Khark Island.

Experts analyze that, including the troops currently being deployed to the Middle East, U.S. military strength in the region could reach about 50,000 personnel, but this includes multiple branches of service, with a large number of logistics personnel, meaning that there are not many ground forces capable of executing an island seizure mission. However, the U.S. military can still continue to assemble more ground forces, allowing for available assault forces to exceed 10,000 personnel, which would provide the U.S. with sufficient strength to carry out an operation to seize Khark Island.

Khark Island is located in the northwestern part of the Persian Gulf, measuring about 6 kilometers long and 3 kilometers wide, with 90% of Iran's crude oil exported from here.

For decades, the U.S. has coveted Khark Island. According to U.S. media reports, during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, then-President Carter considered bombing or seizing the island. In 1988, while still in business, Trump also suggested seizing the island while promoting his book "The Art of the Deal."

Three methods of seizing the island

U.S. military experts point out that there are three methods available for the U.S. military to seize the island: amphibious assault, helicopter insertion, and airborne parachuting, which may also be used in a mixed approach, but regardless of the method, there are significant risks involved. Khark Island is only about 25 kilometers from the Iranian mainland, and U.S. attacking forces would always be under the coverage of Iranian coastal firepower.

If an amphibious assault is conducted, meaning a forced landing from the beach, the U.S. amphibious fleet would become a concentrated target for Iranian firepower while passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Former U.S. Army officer Harrison Man stated that the Iranian military could deploy mines in the strait and surrounding waters of Khark Island, while also using coastal anti-ship missiles, drones, and unmanned boats to launch attacks, making any landing operation vulnerable to Iranian artillery and rocket fire.

While helicopter insertion could avoid anti-ship weapons, all aircraft attempting to land would become targets for Iranian drones, missiles, and artillery, and would also face threats from ground-based short-range air defense systems. Additionally, the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and various helicopters used by the U.S. Marine Corps would require multiple trips to deliver sufficient forces, giving Iran ample time to calibrate their strike parameters.

Airborne parachuting is even more dangerous. Man believes that while U.S. air superiority could suppress and destroy remaining Iranian air defense capabilities, the dispersed nature of parachute landings could lead to deviations from the intended drop zones, potentially resulting in drowning or landing alone within Iranian-controlled areas.

Although the Trump administration claims that U.S. forces have destroyed all Iranian military targets on the island, it is currently uncertain how many Iranian troops remain on the island.

Greater dangers after seizing the island

Military experts analyze that even if the U.S. military captures Khark Island, the subsequent situation will be even more perilous.

First, U.S. soldiers could become "sitting ducks" trapped on the island. Experts analyze that if the U.S. military seizes the oil facilities on the island and occupies it, they would be highly susceptible to various forms of bombardment and may also face close-quarters combat. If the U.S. military withdraws, it could lead to a repeat of the disastrous scenes seen during the Somalia or Afghanistan withdrawals.

Man stated that for those troops "unfortunately ordered" to execute the island seizure mission, this operation, even if not considered a "suicide mission," could very well evolve into a "hostage crisis."

Second, the effectiveness of alleviating the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz would be limited. Khark Island is still several hundred kilometers from the Strait of Hormuz, and occupying the island may not prevent Iran from continuing to use coastal facilities in the strait to attack U.S. ships.

Third, it could force the U.S. military to continue increasing troop levels, making the situation in the Middle East more complex and intense. If U.S. forces on the island find themselves in trouble, the U.S. may be compelled to continuously reinforce, significantly increasing the likelihood of a larger-scale ground war.

Domestic political "crisis"

For the Trump administration, the biggest trouble with seizing Khark Island may not lie in the military aspect, but in domestic political dynamics. There has always been significant controversy within the U.S. regarding this high-risk operation to seize the island.

Some hawkish individuals advocate for the seizure, believing it would help choke off Iran's economic lifeline, reverse the current situation of the conflict, and recreate the so-called "glory of the Venezuela operation."

However, opponents argue that this action would escalate the conflict and bring greater uncertainty.

On one hand, if the oil facilities on Khark Island are destroyed during military operations, it would undoubtedly further devastate oil supplies. Additionally, Iran may retaliate by launching attacks on oil and gas facilities in the Gulf region. This would trigger severe fluctuations in the energy market, placing greater pressure on the U.S. economy. Reports indicate that U.S. forces previously avoided targeting oil facilities when bombing the island.

On the other hand, seizing, occupying, and holding the island could force the U.S. military to continuously deploy ground forces, which means the U.S. would gradually step into a "quagmire of war." This is a result that the Trump administration and the American public are very reluctant to see. According to a recent poll by the U.S. organization "Data for Progress," 68% of respondents oppose launching any scale of ground war against Iran.

U.S. Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat, stated that the operation to seize Khark Island signifies "the beginning of a new round of crisis," which could lead to various "unforeseen consequences."

Reporters: Gao Shan, Huang Qiang