The U.S. military aims to seize Hark Island, and military experts have simulated three possible scenarios

The Trump administration in the United States was reported on the 20th to be significantly increasing troop deployments to the Middle East, including the addition of ground forces. This has intensified discussions within the U.S. military about the possibility of seizing the Iranian oil export hub, Khark Island. U.S. military experts have speculated that there may be three potential paths for the U.S. military to take Khark Island, but each path carries significant risks. Furthermore, even if the U.S. military successfully captures the island, it will not mean "mission accomplished," as there will be at least two major headaches for the Trump administration afterward. Is U.S. Military Strength Sufficient? Multiple sources have revealed that the U.S. is increasing its military presence in the Middle East, including amphibious assault ships and Marines. On the 20th, U.S. sources indicated that three warships, including the USS Boxer amphibious assault ship, and approximately 2,500 Marines have departed from California, expected to arrive in the Middle East in at least three weeks. A few days prior, the Pentagon had dispatched the USS Tripoli amphibious assault ship carrying the U.S. Marine Corps' 31st Expeditionary Unit from Japan to the Middle East, with an estimated size of up to 5,000 personnel, expected to arrive in the next couple of days. U.S. military experts believe that the current reinforcement of military strength may aim to "secure" the Strait of Hormuz or prepare for the seizure of Khark Island. Experts analyze that, including the troops being deployed to the Middle East, the U.S. military presence in the region could reach about 50,000 personnel, encompassing multiple branches, including a large number of logistics personnel, but the actual ground forces capable of executing the island seizure mission are limited. However, the U.S. military can still continue to assemble more ground forces, allowing for a strike force of over 10,000 personnel, which would provide sufficient strength for an operation to seize Khark Island. Khark Island is located in the northwestern part of the Persian Gulf, measuring approximately 6 kilometers long and 3 kilometers wide, with 90% of Iran's crude oil exported from here. For decades, Americans have 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 mentioned the idea of capturing 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. However, each method carries significant risks. 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 forcibly landing on the beach, the U.S. amphibious fleet will become a concentrated target for Iranian firepower while passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Former U.S. Army officer Harrison Mann 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 may 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 equipped by the U.S. Marine Corps would require multiple trips to deliver sufficient forces, giving Iran ample time to calibrate their strike parameters Paratroopers' air drops are even more dangerous. Man believes that the U.S. military's air superiority can suppress and destroy the remaining Iranian air defense forces, but paratroopers landing are widely dispersed, making it easy to deviate from the designated landing area, which could lead to drowning or landing alone within Iranian-controlled territory. Although the Trump administration claims that the U.S. military has destroyed all Iranian military targets on the island, it is currently uncertain how many Iranian troops remain on the island. More Dangerous After Seizing the Island Military experts analyze that even if the U.S. military captures Hark Island, the subsequent situation will be even more perilous. First, U.S. soldiers may become "live targets" stranded on the island. Experts analyze that if the U.S. military captures the oil facilities on the island and occupies it, they will be highly susceptible to various forms of shelling and may also face close combat. If the U.S. military withdraws, it could lead to a repeat of the disastrous scenes seen during the withdrawals from Somalia or Afghanistan. Man states that for those "unfortunately ordered" to execute the island-seizing mission, this operation, even if not considered a "suicide mission," is likely to evolve into a "hostage crisis." Second, the effectiveness of alleviating the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz is limited. Hark Island is still several hundred kilometers away from the Strait of Hormuz, and occupying the island may not necessarily prevent Iran from continuing to use coastal facilities in the strait to attack U.S. ships. Third, it may force the U.S. military to continuously increase troop levels, making the situation in the Middle East more complex and intense. Once U.S. troops on the island find themselves in trouble, the U.S. is likely to be forced to continuously increase troop levels, significantly raising the possibility of a larger ground war. Domestic Political "Crisis" For the Trump administration, the biggest trouble in seizing Hark Island may not lie in the military aspect, but in the domestic political situation. There has always been significant controversy within the U.S. regarding this high-risk action of seizing the island. Some hawkish individuals advocate for the seizure of the island, believing it will help choke off Iran's economic throat, reverse the current situation of the conflict, and recreate the so-called "glory of the Venezuela operation." However, opponents argue that this action will escalate the conflict and bring greater uncertainty. On one hand, if the oil facilities on Hark Island are destroyed during military operations, it will undoubtedly further damage oil supplies. Additionally, Iran may retaliate by launching attacks on oil and gas facilities in the Gulf region. This will trigger severe fluctuations in the energy market, putting greater pressure on the U.S. economy. It is reported that the U.S. military deliberately avoided oil facilities when bombing the island previously. On the other hand, seizing, occupying, and defending the island may force the U.S. military to continuously deploy ground troops, which means the U.S. is gradually stepping into a "quagmire of war." This is a result that the Trump administration and the American people are very reluctant to see. According to the latest poll by the organization "Data for Progress," 68% of surveyed Americans oppose launching any scale of ground war against Iran. Democratic Senator Ed Markey from the U.S. Congress stated that the operation to seize Hark Island signifies "the beginning of a new round of crisis," which may bring various "unforeseen consequences." Source: Shanghai Securities Journal Risk Warning and Disclaimer The market has risks, and investment should be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the specific investment goals, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article align with their specific circumstances. Investment based on this is at one's own risk