Post #1855327
2026-04-01 19:33 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@carlog@mastodonapp.uk 2026-04-01 19:45
1. Kharg. It's very far away from Hormuz and holding it would do precisely nothing to open the strait. It would be air-supported only - the US navy would suffer heavy losses if it were to attempt sailing all the way up the Gulf. Unless landing craft could be brought to a friendly nation on the south side and launch from there. As a rocky island near the Iran coast, geography favours the defender here - but without intelligence on the actual forces involved it's difficult to say. If Iran could mount any kind of anti-air defence it would be very risky for the troop transports. It's easily within range of drone and rocket attack from the nearby mainland, so the losses will mount the longer USA stays put there. Taking it would be a bargaining chip for Trump - but the Iranian leadership simply don't look like they're that bothered about a deal. *Now with bonus corruption* of course large amounts of oil and facilities would be seized and it would pass directly into ownership by Trump
-
@carlog@mastodonapp.uk 2026-04-01 19:59
2) Isfahan. It would be a raid only, with the stated intention of removing Uranium then withdrawing. Deep in the centre of the country, the troops would be surrounded from the start. It would need to be the largest airborne raid in history. It is within range of V-22s meaning that a vertical landing could be employed. But only just - they would need to be launched from Iraq near the border, or air-refuelled in Iran's airspace. Both options are easily detectable and again, any kind of working air defence will scupper them. It is true that the USAF is very competent at air-defense suppression. Yet there have been aircraft losses to enemy fire already. Or transport planes could be employed. There would need to be an operation to create an expedient landing strip for the C-130s. This failed last time - have they learned how to make this work?
-
@carlog@mastodonapp.uk 2026-04-01 20:11
2a. The most difficult part comes next. The uranium would need to be located, secured for transit and safely removed. They will need to test it in situ to make sure it hasn't been substituted with something else. That's not easy to do under fire and against a time limit Iran could swap the UF6 in the cylinders with something hazardous and a way to make them leak when on board the planes. Or they could pack them with MAGA hats, who knows. By this time the defences will be fully aware and the withdrawal will be under heavy attack all the way home. There will of course be casualties but there is a greater risk - capture of troops. Leaving POWs behind would prompt further escalation
-
@carlog@mastodonapp.uk 2026-04-01 20:24
3. Qeshm. When the Trump administration started talking about Kharg, I initially mistakenly thought this was what they wanted. Holding it would definitely help to defend the strait, it could be approached more easily by the US navy ('easy' is very relative here, but it is at least plausible they could fight their way in). And it has not been mentioned at all in briefings. Is this all strategic misdirection by the US? Qeshm would still be difficult to retain, it's a LOT bigger than Kharg and it's even closer to the Iran coast, meaning the rate of attrition from rockets and drones would be higher. The temptation to stay would be extremely high, dragging the US into yet another occupation trap. However, the main reason I discount Qeshm is I simply dont think Trump would keep it under his hat for this long! He blurts out all sorts of secrets when he thinks it's fine to do so.