Video Humanizes Kharg Island -- the Iranian Island the US wants to Invade
Tour Kharg Island, Iran (5 min Video)
Earlier I featured a video from Dimitri Lascaris, reporting from the Strait of Hormuz.
Today’s video and research involves a video tour of Kharg Island, which US officials talk about storming as part of their effort to deprive Iran of 90% of its oil income.
Video from 7 months ago: (5 min)
Video Comments:
So glad I came across this video. The US and others would have us to believe that this island was nothing more than an oil producing island. With nothing on it, but it’s really quite charming. It brings a whole new meaning to seizing or having control of this island. I just hope this war doesn’t ruin it. It looks beautiful.
Wikipedia:
The island contains several important archaeological sites, including ruins of a Christian monastery dating from possibly as far back as the 7th century. There are also tombs, temples, and the Achaemenid inscription of cuneiform writing dating from between 550 and 330 BCE. It has been an important trading post for centuries, controlled by the Portuguese Empire from the 16th to the 17th centuries and by the Dutch colonial empire in the 18th century.
The Folly of Seizing Kharg Island
by Bilal y. Saab, (War on the Rocks)
While Marine forces will undoubtedly encounter a range of risks in their mission, they are capable of seizing the island. These specialized units are designed for a broad spectrum of operations, including forcible entry. The far more challenging question is what happens if they succeed, but Iran still doesn’t budge, or worse, responds by escalating? What does Trump do then?
The argument that the Marine forces would be sitting ducks the moment they land on the island is overstated. Each Marine expeditionary unit will be well-equipped to defend itself and will have superior close air support from aircraft and ships already deployed in the region.
But it’s one thing to seize an island and another altogether to hold it — under enemy fire no less. Inevitably, the longer U.S. troops hold Kharg, the more complicated sustainment operations will be.
One successful Iranian strike against the marines that leads to heavy casualties, and Trump will be in an impossible position. Staying after such a deadly attack and possibly sending reinforcements would guarantee mission creep, while withdrawing would be politically suicidal and strategically disastrous.
If the whole point of seizing Kharg — operationally feasible — is to crush or significantly degrade Iran’s ability to disrupt oil traffic through the strait, it may not work because Iran will still have asymmetric military capabilities to do just that.
.. Trump is banking on Iran’s resolve to continue fighting to diminish after losing Kharg, but he may want to reconsider that assumption. Iran has already been heavily bombed by the United States and Israel, and all that has done is reinforce a siege mentality. Unlike the United States and Israel, the war is an existential fight for the Iranian regime. To make matters worse, Iran feels, rightly or wrongly, that it is winning the war, so its appetite for concessions is decreasing by the day.
It’s true that the U.S. seizure of Kharg would deal a massive blow to Iran’s economy, but the effects won’t be immediate. Iran will still be able to survive for months before it runs out of money, and during that period, it will undoubtedly escalate, forcing Trump and the world economy to absorb far more economic pain and regional instability than what’s been experienced thus far.
If ordered, the marines will display operational brilliance and take over Kharg. But the strategic objective of stabilizing the world’s energy market and keeping 20 percent of its oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz may not be achieved.
Comments:
Do you like recent profiles like the Strait of Hormuz and Kharg island that provide more depth to stories in the news? Should I look for more of these?
What does the US expect it will accomplish if it succeeds in invading Karg Island?
What if Iran refuses “unconditional surrender” and escalates?
Iran has the ability to attack forces on Kharg Island from the Iranian mainland. Where does it leave US decision-makers if it is able to take, but not keep control of the island? Does it have a plan for escalating or deescalating? How long will it continue doubling down? Will it set a limit?
Q: Where does it leave US decision-makers if it is able to take, but not keep control of Kharg island?
Gemini: The dilemma of being able to take but not keep Kharg Island leaves U.S. decision-makers in a precarious strategic position. In the context of the current 2026 conflict, this scenario creates a “tactical victory, strategic liability” dynamic.
According to recent military and geopolitical analyses, here is where it leaves U.S. leadership:
1. The “Leverage Trap”
If the U.S. can seize the island (which handles 90% of Iran’s oil exports), it gains massive theoretical leverage. However, if it cannot hold the island against Iranian mainland strikes—just 21 miles (33 km) away—that leverage evaporates the moment forces withdraw.
The Problem: U.S. planners must decide if a “raid and destroy” mission is more effective than a “seize and hold” mission.
The Risk: A temporary occupation that ends in a forced retreat would be framed as a significant Iranian victory, potentially strengthening the regime’s domestic standing.
2. Force Protection vs. Political Will
Decision-makers are left balancing the high cost of protection against the value of the asset.
Vulnerability: Military analysts like Michael Eisenstadt have noted that Kharg is within range of Iranian FPV drones, artillery, and short-range missiles launched from the mountainous mainland.
Sustainability: Maintaining the “Iron Dome-style” defense required to protect troops on such a small, exposed island (8 square miles) indefinitely is resource-intensive and risks high American casualties, which could quickly erode domestic support for the war.
3. Economic “Shock without Solution”
Seizing the island immediately spikes global oil prices (recently hitting $115+ per barrel).
The Dilemma: If the U.S. takes the island but cannot maintain a stable environment to resume or control exports, it suffers the “price shock” of a supply disruption (losing 1.5–2 million bpd) without the “stability” of a long-term solution.
The Result: This leaves decision-makers responsible for a global energy crisis while lacking the secure footing needed to negotiate an end to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
4. Search for an “Off-Ramp”
The inability to keep control forces the U.S. to look for alternative strategies that achieve the same goal with less risk:
Maritime Blockade: Many experts suggest a “quarantine” or naval blockade of tankers leaving Kharg is safer than putting boots on the ground.
Remote Destruction: Instead of an occupation, decision-makers might pivot toward “obliterating” the infrastructure via airstrikes, effectively ending the island’s utility without needing to garrison it.
Summary Table: Take vs. Keep
Elsewhere:
Iranian Tours (video creators)
Eavar Tours: pictures