You don’t understand - bombing the island would be a Pyrrhic victory for Iran, except without the victory part. The island means nothing to the U.S. The smart thing to do would to have the Marines take it, rig the facilities to explode, and then dig in - long range missiles and drones can’t do much damage to entrenched infantry, especially if they bring SeaBees, and those launching them would expose themselves to U.S. airstrikes.
Look, this is just armchair strategizing here - I obviously don’t know the sides’ actual capabilities. But if it works, the island can serve as excellent leverage against the Iranian regime after the fighting stops.
Not bombing it would be more of a loss for them. They know perfectly well they can’t win a standup fight against a superpower, so all they can do it hit us whenever we give them a chance. They’d likely blow it all up themselves rather than let us take the island intact if they have the chance.
If Iran gets the choice between losing without destroying the island, and losing destroying the island (taking a lot of enemies with it), why wouldn’t they destroy it?
If defeat is assured, better to make the enemy’s victory as bitter as possible.
I don’t see how that island really changes anything. That’s not how Iran threatens the Strait. Iran pretty much just has to dig into their own territory and threaten a few ships in the Strait each day until Trump gets bored or sick of rising prices. That’s why this is such a difficult task (and such a stupid choice to go to war). It’s monumentally easy for Iran to continuously threaten ships in the Strait (just need speedboats and small arms), and monumentally difficult for the US or anyone else to eliminate that threat (would need to escort every ship or take all the Iranian territory along the Strait). I went through the Strait of Hormuz four times while I was in the Navy and I vividly remember the briefings of the danger and threats.
Cut off oil shipments to China in Chinese tankers. Which I understand are being allowed passage through the Strait. That would also cut off money to Iran, although it would also make the energy crisis worse. Trump and advisors may not care about that last.
Simply detaining one or two tankers would cut off oil shipments from Iran without having to occupy any islands, wouldn’t it? why taking the risk of sending troops?
Which is why an at-sea blockade wouldn’t work. Third parties friendly to Iran challenge it, and either the US backs down or boards and siezes a neutral non-belligerent’s tanker. No bueno. Someone in the administration must have surely gotten that point across.
But occupying the oil terminal and shutting down operations would. It’s not like Chinese stevedores are going ashore and starting up the oil transfer gear to fill up the tanker.
A reminder, consequences and speculation belong in:
Which @What_Exit pointed out just 12 hours ago. Please take such discussions to that thread, unless it’s an actively developing situation (such as Kharg island at the moment).
Yes, one can turn to the other in a fast moving situation so we’ve been giving a lot of benefit of the doubt. But recently there’s been a lot of backsliding.
No warnings at this time, but if we have to keep reminding the thread every twelve hours, that’s likely coming.
