> And there's nothing the US can do about that.

1. Send Marines to seize Kharg island via long range air assault from 2 ARGs + land bases

2. Flood Kharg-adjacent mainland with tactical aviation to eliminate short range artillery and rocket systems

3. Fortify position on Kharg island and declare all oil revenue will be placed in US-controlled holding account, with release to Iran contingent on cooperation (re: Why occupy Kharg? Because then you have actual money in an account as leverage, while calming international oil prices and consumers, not just a blockade, which antagonizes international oil consumers)

4. Declare a buffer demilitarized zone around the Strait of Hormuz

5. Land Marines in buffer zone if necessary to monitor

~50% of the revenue to pay the Iranian military comes from oil exports. Therefore, the Iranian regime doesn't survive without oil export revenue. 90% of Iranian oil is exported through Kharg.

It's an aggressive plan, but it's feasible.

Especially because Iran has no ability to repel an invasion of the island or retake it once it's occupied.

Their only possible reaction would be to bombard troops there, destroying their own export infrastructure in the process.

Which would depend on how close to the mat the current regime wants to take this, as that would also seal their eventual downfall.

▲

ifyoubuildit 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

"Their only possible reaction would be to bombard troops there, destroying their own export infrastructure in the process."

Right, so if that's their only possible reaction, isn't that a bad thing for everyone? It looks like they've made it clear they're not going down without bringing everyone else with them, and why would they? What options do they have?

▲

franktankbank 2 days ago | parent [-]

> they've made it clear they're not going down without bringing everyone else with them

Isn't that exactly what you would say even if you didn't mean it?

▲

ethbr1 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

You'd think everyone would have learned by this point that none of the belligerent major world powers mean what they say anymore.

Definitely not Russia, China, and the US.

They all transparently see diplomacy and messaging around it as a tool of war. Small surprise when others do too.

▲

ifyoubuildit 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean they seem to have made it clear by their actions. They're in an existential situation, so its not like there is any reason to hold anything back.

If your opponent is trying to turn you into Libya, then whatever you do just has to not fail as badly as that for it to be the right move. You basically become a cornered animal.

▲

ethbr1 a day ago | parent [-]

The thing about disintegrating regimes is there is no "they".

There's people with power, looking out for their own self interests. You think after a few more weeks all of the newly promoted Iranian military leadership is going to weigh a few million dollars in personal benefit against the glory of the cause and decide on the latter?

▲

ifyoubuildit a day ago | parent [-]

OK, so take this back to your boots on kharg island plan, where this "no they" only has the option of bombarding our troops. Are you saying they also have the option of ... Getting a few million dollars in personal benefit somehow?

The only option they have on offer is death, either fighting the us and Israel, or fighting in whatever civil war crops up after. Why would they believe in any negotiations after the last two times?

▲

ethbr1 21 hours ago | parent [-]

> The only option they have on offer is death, either fighting the us and Israel, or fighting in whatever civil war crops up after. Why would they believe in any negotiations after the last two times?

The writing is on the wall that the US wants to end the war (and Israel won't have a choice but to follow). Which means anyone with military command authority in Iran has leverage to extract concessions from the US.

Do either of us think the current US admin is above causing a few million to appear in a bank account somewhere, in exchange for secret cooperation?

Especially when the calculus is between stick (Israeli assassination) and carrot (money), and that substantial personal wealth means power in any post-war Iranian order. Or living as a wealthy expat as plan B.

The point of regime decapitation, to give the Israeli assassinations (especially of internal security force leaders) their most strategically foresighted interpretation (instead of the more likely opportunistic one), is to shuffle people into power that haven't already made a resist vs cooperate decision.

At some point, everyone cares about their own skin and their future most.

	▲	ifyoubuildit 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Do either of us think the current US admin is above causing a few million to appear in a bank account somewhere, in exchange for secret cooperation? > Especially when the calculus is between stick (Israeli assassination) and carrot (money), and that substantial personal wealth means power in any post-war Iranian order. Or living as a wealthy expat as plan B. No, of course we wouldn't (and I'd say shouldn't) be above that. The question is how that comes to pass. Imagine you're some sort of Iranian official that actually has some sway in the country. 1) why on earth would you even entertain negotiations, when your enemy repeatedly uses them as cover for sneak attacks? 2) assuming you get past 1), and the us offers you money. If you take it and leave, you don't have any influence in your country anymore anyway, so what have we gained? If you take it and stay, do the people still follow you if you capitulate? And what's to stop Israel from assassinating you anyway, or launching another war 6 months from now? The only rational move seems to be to establish deterrence by making this thing as painful as possible for everyone involved, and us invading plays right into that.

▲

red-iron-pine a day ago | parent | prev [-]

there is no way the USMC would be able to hold Kharg and the buffer zone without extensive casualties. the buffer zone would be a full-fledged combat zone, non-stop. you'd see Ukraine-at-its-worst levels of drone strikes, and the US military is not equipped to deal with that, not yet.

the Iranian missile stockpile may be drained thin, but their army and conventional equipment surpluses could absolutely maintain a consistent and aggressive pushback.

> Their only possible reaction would be to bombard troops there, destroying their own export infrastructure in the process.

it's already destroyed mate. and keeping it up and running would be a tall order when the Iranians are right there.

> ~50% of the revenue to pay the Iranian military comes from oil exports.

this is a country that convinced children to charge through minefields during Iran-Iraq; you think pay is going to stop them? or that China and Russia wouldn't give them ample weapons?

there is no winning play here

	▲	ethbr1 a day ago \| parent [-]
		> could absolutely maintain a consistent and aggressive pushback With 30+ km systems launchedu from flat terrain, right onshore of US air power? That's the limit of 155mm conventional, and Iran isn't launching gold-plated Excalibur rounds. That means rocket artillery, either in unguided mode (see next point) or SRBM (of which they don't have an unlimited supply). Enabling drone strikes at 30+ km over water against US EW looks very different than terrestrial Ukraine too. > it's already destroyed mate Citation-needed that the oil infrastructure on Kharg was destroyed. > this is a country that convinced children to charge through minefields during Iran-Iraq I expect the zeal of modern Iranian youth for the revolution is dimmed from 1980.