There is no party even capable of doing it.

The Gulf coastline is almost 1000 miles long, there would have to be a gigantic occupation of an area the size of a small country, at the same time as there would be 'all out war' with Iran, which would be backed by China and to a lesser extent Russia, and whereupon an invasion would provide them with millions of determined fighters.

We're talking 'Gulf War' scale of operation against a much bigger, more capable country, and of forces willing to fight.

And the US doesn't even have anywhere to do it from.

Assuming a Gulf country would host an invasion force - extremely unlikely - there's no magical way for US to cross the Gulf with large numbers of forces, as we can't get capitol ships in there in the first place.

There's no amphibious capability at the scale necessary on the Arabian Sea.

Literally just the logistics of large scale landings is almost impossible.

That leaves the Kuwait / Iran border, and maybe something a bit wider.

And then fight through the mountains across the Gulf?

The thought is absurd, it's a 'major campaign theatre' - of which US forces were theoretically capable of fighting in two at once, but that's not pragmatic. That's 'wartime economy' kind of thing.

It's possible but unlikely that 10K marines and paratroopers are going to be able to do much, because it's very risky and likely won't accomplish much.

▲

arkensaw 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The Gulf coastline is almost 1000 miles long, there would have to be a gigantic occupation of an area the size of a small country

If you want to secure even 5 miles inland over 1000 miles, that's 50,000 square miles, or an area bigger than more than half the countries on earth, including North and South Korea,

Iran is the 18th largest country in the world

▲

JumpCrisscross 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If you want to secure even 5 miles inland over 1000 miles, that's 50,000 square miles

If you want to secure the entire Strait, sure. My understanding is you'd only seek to hold the area around the Musandam Peninsula, along with a couple of the islands near it.

▲

bluegatty 8 hours ago | parent [-]

The entire gulf is at risk. Iran can interdict and cause problems from almost anywhere.

Granted it may not have to be 'the whole thing' but something like it.

▲

JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> entire gulf is at risk. Iran can interdict and cause problems from almost anywhere

Sure, but its effect is far more dilute. In the Strait–in particular, around the Musandam Peninsula–it has unique geostrategic leverage.

▲

matusp 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

However dilute the effect is, if they are able to hit a few gas/oil carriers with drones there, nobody is going to use that body of water.

	▲	JumpCrisscross an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> if they are able to hit a few gas/oil carriers with drones there, nobody is going to use that body of water It’s a lot more feasible to escort tankers after the Strait than it is before, when American warships have to come close to shore. Iran doesn’t have the resources to deny access to the entire Indian Ocean.

▲

bluegatty 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

'matsup' is correct.

Iran only needs to score 'one point' to win the whole game.

If they can threaten tankers, then the gulf will remain closed, and that's that.

It's really debatable if the US really has the capability to play 'whack a mole' and get all the moles.

▲

bluegatty 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Wow, amazing perspective on proportionality there.

▲

generic92034 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And this was all known for decades. Now everyone pays the price for the US leadership surrounding themselves with spineless yes-men.

▲

cyanydeez 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

At some point, there's going to be a dumbenough general to try to paratrooper their way in. They've spent the past year trying to cull "dysloyal" troops, so at some point, the delusion will surface is an absurdly dumb attempt.

Hard to see it any other way.

▲

bluegatty 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

US forces are not partisan and not culled, they're mostly the same entity they were last year, but with a few Generals asked to retire.

(Edit: highly professional I might add. There are quirks, and obvious hints of 'nationalist bias' - but that's to be expected. They are not the 'cultural problem' we see on the news - at least not for now. They lean 'normal')

The current Joint Chiefs is a bit obsequious but he's not crazy.

These are very sane people, for the most part.

They may be pressed to do something risky, like land troops at Kharg island, but not completely suicidal.

That 'risk' may entail getting a number of soldiers captured, but that's not on the extreme side of military failure, it's mostly geopolitical failure. It would certainly end DJT as a popular movement.

Having a ship hit, or a few soldiers captured - and this sounds morose - is normal. That's why they exist. It's the political fallout that's deadly.

They won't do anything to crazy. The craziest thing they could do is 'full invasion' and Congress won't allow that. It's very unpopular and DJT has populist instinct as well - he's trying to 'find a way out'.

▲

pjc50 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> They won't do anything to crazy.

I don't know, they've been talking up a lot of crazy stuff, like strikes on desalination facilities and the power grid.

> The craziest thing they could do is 'full invasion' and Congress won't allow that.

Genuninely unclear to me whether Congress has control here; don't they currently have a Republican majority who will agree to anything anyway?

	▲	bluegatty 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		- So I meant militarily. Yes - you're right, they could totally do something as stupid as attack civilian infrastructure. I totally buy that. - Congress is in charge. First - they need budget, and the GOP majority has zero appetiate for approving this. Remember that most of the GOP dislike Trump, and they also don't like this war, it's risky to the US - and - their own jobs. So the GOP finds ways to 'resit' Trump without sticking their neck out. They do this collectively by grumbling and not passing legislation. The majority leaders tell Trump 'We just don't have the votes for it!' thereby not taking a position against Trump, more or less 'blaming the ghosts in the party' kind of thing. That's very different than passing legislation that reels Trump in, that's 'active defiance'. So by 'passive defiance' and not approving $, the majority holds the Admin back. Remember that nobody wants this, not the VP, not Rubio. Hegseth is a 'TV Entertainer'. The Defence Establishment and Intelligence Establishment knows this is stupid. 80% of Congress wants it over now. If DJT has 65% poularity and 75% for the war, the equation would tilt, but as it stands, there is not enough political momentum. But anything could happen ... The death or capture of US soldiers could strongly evoke people to move one way or the other.

▲

cyanydeez 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Theyre culling all branches for loyalty. You arnt paying attention or you thinl those who arnt being promoted are more DEI.

THE rest of your screed follows from inattentive disorder.

	▲	bluegatty 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm a former service member (of another country) and I have family members in the US forces. I'm paying relatively close attention. Just FYI, US forces are enormous, and with a very long and institutionalized history, and it would take at least decade to tilt them in such a manner, moreover, it's not even happening in the way you're insinuating. Removing certain DEI polices will have a very marginal affect on anything but senior officer promotions, as US forces are very meritocratic in most ways already. Removing transgender personnel etc. is arguably unfair in many ways - but will have absolutely zero effect on those institutions overall. None. Nobody is getting 'retired' for not being sufficiently MAGA, other than a few select positions in Washington. Your comment is uninformed and unwelcome; you'll have to do a bit better than consume Reddit in order to gain actual knowledge and perspective, and save yourself the embarrassment.

▲

Caius-Cosades 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Military does as the Civilian leadership orders them to, there is no other way in the west, and if the civilian leadership demands that they want an ground invasion, then they'll get one, even if it's the most moronic waste of human life in the world.

	▲	bluegatty 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's true that 'civilians are in charge' but it would be an oversimplification to suggest that the military will just 'do what they are asked'. Civilian leadership takes a few forms, there is a division between the powers of Executive and Congress. The military won't pursue anything long term without the backing of both. There are a lot of legal thresholds, Congressional approval being just one of them. There is institutional incumbency, and the military will push back extremely hard on things that it deems impossible, or excessively risky. Populism etc. etc.. There are so many factors. If they want to mount a risky 500 000 person invasion of Iran, they'll have to do a lot of 'convincing' and get a lot of buy in from stake holders. There is no chance that the Executive count mount that kind of operation without a lot of institutional buy in.