War On Iran – No. Taking Kharg Island Is Not An Option.
moon of alabama
When serious export of Iranian oil started it was soon met by a problem. Iran’s coast is relatively shallow. Big tankers have a lot of draft. It was thus troublesome for Iran’s oil industry to deliver large loads of crude oil to big ships.
Luckily there was an island near to deep water some 15 miles off the Iranian coast. Pipes were laid from the oil producing mainland of Iran to the island and piers were built to be able to load very large crude oil carrying vessels. The name of the island is Kharg. Today its is with 90% of all product the main export terminal for oil produced in Iran.
bigger
In an interview with a British newspaper back in 1988, an up-and-coming New York property mogul named Donald Trump was asked about his plans for the future. True to form, he had plenty to say, boasting that he might one day run for president and vowing to win back “respect” for America on the world stage. He also had stern words for Iran’s Islamic Republic, already a sworn enemy of America in the wake of the 1979 US hostage crisis.
“They’ve been beating us psychologically, making us look a bunch of fools,” Trump told The Guardian. “One bullet shot at one of our men or ships, and I’d do a number on Kharg Island. I’d go in and take it.”
Several figures of the current Trump administration have likewise opined that the taking of Kharg would give the U.S. a hold over all Iranian oil exports – now and in future:
“What we want to do is to get such massive oil reserves in Iran out of the hands of terrorists,” said Jarrod Agen, a White House adviser, in an interview over the weekend with Fox Business, which hinted that Kharg is a central part of the rationale for Epic Fury.
Kharg is a relatively flat island 4 miles long and 2 miles wide with little features. It is difficult to defend it.
The U.S recently canceled an Army exercise (archived) of the 82nd Airborne Division which could be the prime unit for a U.S. operation to take Kharg.
But there are two problems with this.
The first one is to take and hold an island very near to Iran:
The Kharg island idea is a totally harebrained scheme. You can’t do that without suppressing Iranian fire. Not only is it fully exposed to Iranian missiles and drones, it is within striking range of Iranian mobile artillery. If you land a division of the marines, they will have to be evacuated within hours after suffering dozens if not hundreds of casualties. The entire scheme assumes that the US has suppressed Iranian fire, when suppressing Iranian fire is the very problem that needs to be solved by the US military.
Writers at the Telegraph seem to think that the problem can be overcome by deploying U.S. Navy assets:
According to Ian Bremmer, a political risk consultant writing for the global affairs website GZERO Media: “The island (Kharg) itself is less than half the size of Manhattan, isn’t extensively fortified, and sits isolated enough that US destroyers and close-in air defence systems could establish a credible defensive perimeter well offshore.”
How please would one deploy U.S. destroyers to the Persian Gulf when the Strait of Hormuz is closed? And how long would these survive while being in range of Iranian anti-ship missiles?
Any operation on Kharg would have be done by air. But how would the soldiers deployed to it be resupplied? How would one evacuated the likely heavy losses?
Left out by the Telegraph is that Bremmer knows of the problem. He does not see an attack on Kharg as a solution to anything:
Iran still has thousands of short-range missiles and drones that can’t be taken out. They’ve shown they can hit ships and down aircraft. An operation to seize Kharg requires massing American forces in contested waters against an adversary with home-field advantage and nothing left to lose. Even degraded Iranian command and control can coordinate enough to turn an amphibious assault into a bloodbath Trump wouldn’t be able to tolerate politically.
And seizing it is only half the battle. Say the US takes Kharg cleanly and holds it. Now you’re stuck occupying critical infrastructure in the middle of the Persian Gulf indefinitely, defending against a hostile state with every incentive to take it back through drones, mines, sabotage, proxy attacks, terrorism, and slow attrition that bleeds you for years.
Seen as military operational problem Khark can be taken, albeit with large losses, and maybe held for a month to a year.
But then you will have to confront the second problem.
Iran’s martyred Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had threatened to mirror everything that is done to Iran to the wider Gulf region. If Iran can not produce oil, no other country will be able to do so. If Iran is blocked from exporting its hydrocarbon products other Gulf countries will be blocked too. As the secretary of Iran’s National Security Council states:
Ali Larijani | علی لاریجانی @alilarijani_ir – 12:28 UTC · Mar 10, 2026
Strait of Hormuz will either be a Strait of peace and prosperity for all or will be a Strait of defeat and suffering for warmongers.
Take Kharg and all export harbors in the Gulf region will come under sustained Iranian missile attacks. The ten days of war so far have already shown that Iran can do that. Today the Al Ruwais refinery in the UAE, the largest one in the Gulf with a capacity of 900,000 bpd, was shut down after being attacked by Iranian drones.
If Kharg is take and occupied by U.S. soldiers, oil export harbors – Al Başrah in Iraq, Mina Al Ahmadi in Kuwait, Fujairah in the UAE, Ras Laffan and Mesaieed in Qatar and Ras Tanura in Saudi Arabia – will all come under sustained fire and be closed.
So no. Taking Kharg is not an option.
Militarily it would be complicate, cause severe losses and turn out to be unsustainable. Economically it would be catastrophic because Iran, once blocked from exporting it products, can and will stop other Gulf countries from doing so too.
Let’s hope that the Trump of 1988 has since become a bit smarter.
posted by Satish Sharma at
14:13
0 Comments
