Do we have boots on the ground? The answer will be clearly no. Yes, I am all in favor of taking Kharg Island yesterday.
Take Kharg Island? Sure. What could possibly go wrong? Itâs one thing to seize it, but then what? Holding it is problematic.
Letâs start with the location of the island. It sits in close proximity to the mainland, so US troops would be vulnerable to Iranian attacks. Despite all the tough talk about how weâve depleted their military, Iran has proven to still be more than capable of hitting targets with precision and lethality. Whether itâs using long/range artillery, ballistic missiles, surface to air missiles, mines, or drones, Iran could inflict significant damages and mass casualties to our troops and the region over time.
This would no doubt put the administration in an awkward position of having to eventually withdraw our troops or escalate into a regional conflict that could drag on for years. Troops on the ground? Just my opinion, but that would be political suicide. Is that what youâre advocating?
Taking Kharg Island isnât another easy takeover like Venezuela. Anyone thinking Iran will simply lay down their weapons and allow the U.S. take a part of their country that supplies 90% of their crude oil exports, the lifeline to their economy, is kidding themselves.
Aside from mass casualties, Iran would also likely strike regional oil and energy infrastructures in the Gulf. Again, theyâve already hit Kuwait, Qatar, and elsewhere in the Gulf. And not just oil and energy, but regional military bases, ports, and airports. Curious, what do you think the global economic implications would be if Iran retaliated by taking out critical oil and energy infrastructure in the Gulf region?
4 Likes
Control of the Strait is what gives Iran leverage. Kharg Island doesnât change that.
What makes you think they would be able to do that? If they could they would have done it already.
Mass casualties? Again, what makes you think they could do it? What fight have they put up so far?
The only reason why we have no taken it is because the e.u. and others are dependent of crude oil coming from the region.
Israel had the dictatorâs regime in their eye sight last year and again earlier this year. This dictatorship or others do not care or want diplomacy. Their ideology is against what we know as freedom. Taking Kharg island wonât be easy but we have no choice. We have the means to obliterate this dictatorship now, not six months from now. Should we wait after the mid terms? That is the likely scenario.
Taking Kharg for oil. Taking hundreds of casualtiesâŠ
Bomb it if you want to but I donât want to see our troops literally dying for oil that could meet the same objective by blowing it up.
2 Likes
Agree with this. There will not be a negotiated settlement that means anything.
If this regime was smart, or just not crazy even, they could have played nice opened everything and been good sports for 2-3 months. And theyâd have gotten everything they dreamed of.
But they are crazy.
Another perspective on crazyâŠthis little, not well thought out snafu, severity limits US ability to respond elsewhere.
By the time full-scale fighting between the US and Iran stopped in April, the Pentagon had fired at least half of its THAAD ballistic missile interceptors, nearly half of its Patriot air defense interceptors, and around 30% of its Tomahawk land-attack missiles, according to a CSIS analysis. CNN previously confirmed the accuracy of the analysis through three people familiar with internal Defense Department stockpile estimates.
There are no THAAD deliveries forecast in 2026. CSIS estimated it would take three or more years to rebuild those inventories to pre-Iran war levels.
Cancian warned that a China conflict scenario isnât the only potential risk that the Pentagon may face if it continues to expend key missiles at a high rate. Analysts believe war plans with North Korea call for a significant amount of US missiles, both to hit enemy targets and to defend US forces and Seoul from projected massive strikes by Pyongyangâs forces.
3 Likes
Music to the ears of the industrial war complex
1 Like
FTFY
I didnât know âboots on the groundâ was a requirement for something to be a forever war. We have troops in harms way, including injuries and deaths. Troops continue to be in harms way no matter if they are in Iran or at bases, ships, aircraft, surrounding around Iran. Their boots might not be on Iran soil but they certainly are in the battlefield.
So youâre in favor of âboots on the groundâ?
It seems you consider âboots on the groundâ as a key component of if this would be a forever war or not. In that case, it sure seems like youâre advocating for a forever war.
2 Likes
I donât think that is the only reason we havenât taken Kharg. It also would involve boots on the ground to take it, and this war is already unpopular in the US. I donât think the political will is there to do so, especially not before the midterms.
Of course, the biggest issue is how they would retaliate. If they see Kharg as critical, would losing it let them go into a scorched earth policy, burning the fields, closing the straight, attacking neighbors, etc. All the things they have done previously when attacked but could be at a whole different level especially if they donât see surrender as an option and only see martyrdom.
None of us on Coogfans truly know what their capabilities are, assumptions that they are incapable of some particular actuon only because they havenât done it yet are foolish, in my opinion.
That also is a danger, and something we have to consider before taking action. The long lead time needed to replace that also is a danger. It isnât something that can be fixed with just throwing money at it either.
All that said, I donât know what we should do. I donât think there are any good choices at this point. Unfortunately, I think we got into this war without a realistic game plan, objectives or way out. We underestimated the response from Iran, maybe even underestimated the response of Americans to this war, and probably underestimated the economic effects.
1 Like
We are concerned about crude too. Itâs not just about Europe. Itâs about us too. Itâs a global market.
Crude prices are why we arenât going to do the things some are suggesting. Itâs pretty much political suicide.
There are no good options to ending this war given political realities. We just have to hope we can get back to where we were with some sort of nuclear deal that looks like what we had.
3 Likes
FAFO illustrated
1 Like
You and some others keep posting the same posts over and over again. cnn has no clues what is going on inside CENTCOM or within our arms supply. Do you think our arms inventory supply is like Walmartâs? We keep this data under wrap for National security reasons. Your so called source are not pervy to this data. They wish they were but they are not. These are opinions piece. You know it and we all know it.
âUnderestimated the response from iranâ
How do you know that and what response are you arguing about?
âUnderestimated the economic effectsâ
Again, how do you know that?
You and others keep making assumptions because of the same reason. We all know what it is.
âNuclear dealâ
What nuclear deal?
If we had a true nuclear deal why is it that this dictatorship made their nuclear program secret?
Again, some of you are blinded for the same reason that we all know.
Why is it that as of this morning they are not telling the world: we donât pursue a nuclear program of any kind.
Has this happened yet? Of course not. That is why this dictatorship has to be obliterated.
2 Likes
Nukes for me not for thee
1 Like
4 Likes
I was clearly giving my opinion. Much like you did in mid April when you assured us that we were on the 1 yard line.
I said nothing about a nuclear deal.
2 Likes
To be fair, I donât remember him saying which 1 yard line.
3 Likes
Were you there?
Original analysis comes from CSIS. They
use US budget data to arrive at their numbers.
Source: Authorsâ calculations based on âDefense Budget Materials,â U.S. Department of Defense, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Budget-Materials/Budget2027/.
Check out the link; then letâs talk.
1 Like