ground troop

WASHINGTON — President Trump is threatening to deploy ground troops to seize critical oil infrastructure on Iran’s Kharg Island, a military gambit that experts say would risk American lives and could still fail to end the war.

If Trump wants to hobble Iran’s oil industry for leverage in negotiations, a better option might be setting up a blockade at sea against ships that have filled up at Kharg Island’s oil terminals, the experts said.

The island — located on the other side of the Persian Gulf from U.S. bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia — is the beating heart of Iran’s oil industry, through which 90% of its exports pass. It is important because Iran’s coastline is mostly too shallow for tanker ships to dock.

“Putting people on the ground might be the most psychologically compelling way of striking a blow at Iran,” said Michael Eisenstadt, a former U.S. military analyst who now directs the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

“On the other hand, you’re putting your own troops at jeopardy,” said Eisenstadt, a retired Army reserve officer who served in Iraq. “It’s not far from the mainland. So they can potentially rain a lot of destruction on the island, if they’re willing to inflict damage on their own infrastructure.”

Seizing Kharg Island could escalate the conflict, said Danny Citrinowicz, an Iran expert at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies.

He said Iran and its proxies — including Yemen’s Houthi rebels — could intensify their retaliation, including by laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz or striking targets with drones across the Arabian Peninsula, from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea.

Commodities researchers and investment banks warn major retaliation could have lasting implications for energy prices and the global economy.

“It will be hard to take. It will be hard to hold,” Citrinowicz said of Kharg Island. “And it might damage the economy, but not in a way that will force the Iranians to capitulate.”

Trump says ‘maybe we take Kharg Island’

Trump is under growing pressure to end the monthlong conflict with Iran, which has attacked U.S. bases and allies in the region.

Iran also has largely closed the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow chokepoint through which 20% of the world’s oil normally flows, causing fuel prices to soar and other economic tumult.

Trump said in a social media post Monday that “great progress is being made” in talks with Iran to end military operations. But he said that if a deal is not reached “shortly” and the strait is not immediately reopened, the U.S. would obliterate power plants, oil wells, Kharg Island and possibly even desalination plants.

Trump has raised the idea of American forces seizing Kharg Island.

“Maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don’t. We have a lot of options,” Trump told the Financial Times. “It would also mean we had to be there (on Kharg Island) for a while.”

Asked about Iranian defenses there, he said: “I don’t think they have any defense. We could take it very easily.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Friday that ground troops would not be needed to achieve the Trump administration’s goals. He did not repeat that assertion Monday after being asked about plans for U.S. ground troops, saying “the president has several options at his disposal” but diplomacy is Trump’s preference.

“Now, they are making threats about controlling the Hormuz Strait in perpetuity, creating a tolling system and the like,” Rubio told ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “That’s not going to be allowed to happen. And the president has a number of options available to him, if he so chooses, to prevent that from happening.”

U.S. has hit targets on the island crucial to Iran

The U.S. has already struck various targets on the island, including air defenses, a radar site, the airport and a hovercraft base, according to satellite analysis by the Institute for the Study of War and American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project.

Petras Katinas, an energy researcher at the Royal United Services Institute, said disrupting Kharg Island would not completely halt oil exports as Iran has other small ports. But it would reduce the oil revenue flowing to Iran’s government, “forcing flows through a much smaller, costlier and less efficient export system,” he said.

However, Tehran has too much at stake to surrender over a single asset, no matter how economically significant, said Citrinowicz, the Iran expert at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies.

While occupying Kharg might offer Washington some leverage in any negotiations, he said the notion that control of the island could be traded for Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was far-fetched.

“It’s in no way a decisive blow,” Citrinowicz said.

U.S. troops face risk from Iran’s mainland if they tried to seize Kharg Island

A U.S. Navy ship carrying about 2,500 Marines recently arrived in the Middle East, while at least 1,000 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division are expected soon. Another 2,500 Marines are being deployed from California. The Trump administration has not said what all those troops will be doing, but the 82nd Airborne is trained to parachute into hostile or contested territory to secure key territory and airfields.

One of the reasons American troops would be vulnerable on Kharg Island is its close proximity — about 33 kilometers (21 miles) — to the Iranian mainland, from which missiles, drones and artillery could be fired. Despite continued U.S. and Israeli strikes, the Islamic Republic is still attacking targets across the region, including a Saudi air base hundreds of miles away where more than two dozen American troops were injured last week.

Even with American ships and planes providing support, there would still be a relatively short window of time to shoot down every drone or missile launched from the mainland at the island, Eisenstadt said.

“The coast tends to be mountainous, so the drones can come in through mountain passes where it’s hard for our radar to pick up,” he said. “And we don’t have the warning time.”

Eisenstadt says a sea blockade against ships carrying Iranian oil would be a safer strategy and achieve the same goal of controlling most of Iran’s oil industry.

“Throw up a quarantine that seeks to seize Iranian oil shipments that are exiting the Gulf,” agreed Clayton Seigle, an energy security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. It could be done at a distance “outside the range of the lion’s share of Iran’s weapon systems.”

Seigle argued against destroying Kharg Island’s oil infrastructure, which Trump also suggested.

“We were supposed to be coming to the rescue of the people that had been rising up and protesting for a better future,” Seigle said. “So to cripple Iran’s revenue-generating potential for many years to come would definitely not work in that direction.”

Finley and Metz write for the Associated Press. Metz reported from Ramallah, West Bank.

WASHINGTON — President Trump says the United States is winning the war with Iran, even as thousands of additional American troops deploy to the Middle East.

He has pilloried other countries for not helping the U.S., only to say later he does not need their assistance. He has twice delayed deadlines for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. He has threatened to “obliterate” Iran’s energy plants if the vital waterway remains largely shut down and said the U.S. was “not affected” by the closure.

At one point this month, Trump claimed that one of his predecessors — who, he strongly suggested, was a Democrat — privately told him he wished he had taken similar action against Iran. Representatives for every living former president denied that any such conversation happened.

As the war entered its second month over the weekend, Trump’s penchant for embellishments, exaggerations and falsehoods is being tested in an environment where the stakes are much higher than a domestic political fight.

A president who has long embraced bluster and salesmanship to shape narratives and focus attention is confronting the unpredictability of war.

Leon Panetta, who served Democratic presidents as Defense secretary, CIA director and White House chief of staff, said he has “seen enough wars where truth becomes the first casualty.”

“It’s not the first administration that has not told the truth about war,” he said. “But the president has made it kind of a very standard approach to almost any question to in one way or another kind of lie about what’s really happening and basically describe everything as fine and that we’re winning the war.”

Michael Rubin, a historian at the American Enterprise Institute who worked as a staff advisor on Iran and Iraq at the Pentagon from 2002 to 2004, said Trump is “the first president of any party in recent history that hasn’t self-constrained to live within rhetorical boundaries.”

“So of course it creates a great deal of confusion,” he said.

The zigs and zags are the point

To his critics, Trump’s style is a sign that doesn’t have a coherent long-term strategy. But for Trump, the zigs and zags seem like the point, a method that keeps his opponents — and pretty much everyone else — always on their heels.

The approach was clear last week in the hours before he announced the second delay of the deadline for Iran to reopen the strait. Asked what he would do about the deadline, Trump said that he did not know and that he had a day before he had to decide.

“In Trump time, a day, you know what it is, that’s an eternity,” Trump said to laughter from members of his Cabinet.

But investors are unimpressed, with U.S. stocks closing out their worst week since the war began. To some on Capitol Hill, the freewheeling is more frustrating than amusing.

Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, lamented that Trump is “going back and forth and constantly contradicting himself.”

“The administration is winging it,” he said. “So how can you trust what the president says?”

Republicans were not willing to go that far, but their concern was apparent heading into a two-week break from Washington. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said his constituents “support what the president has done.”

“But most of my people are also equally or even more so concerned about cost of living,” he said.

Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, who sits on the House Budget Committee and is a member of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, said his constituents were on board with “blowing some crap up.” Nonetheless, he expressed reservations about the prospect of ground troops and said the administration has not provided enough details in briefings for lawmakers. Such sessions, he said, only reveal information you “read in the papers.”

“Taking out bad guys, taking out conventional [weapons], taking out or at least working to take out nuclear capability, pressing to keep the straits open, all those are good things and I’ve been supportive and will continue to be supportive,” Roy said. “But we’ve got to have a serious conversation about how long this is going to go, boots on the ground, all those things, press for further briefings and understanding of where it’s all headed.”

Political risks ahead

While Trump has maintained deep support among Republicans, a poll last week from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research indicates that the president risks further frustrating his voters if the U.S. gets involved in the kind of prolonged war in the Middle East that he promised to avoid. He campaigned against starting new foreign wars altogether, and his reversal on that already has irked some of his longtime supporters.

Although 63% of Republicans back airstrikes against Iranian military targets, the survey found, only 20% back deploying American ground troops.

That reflects the political challenges ahead for Trump, who did not prepare the country for such an extensive overseas conflict. If the war drags on or escalates, pressure on Republicans could build before the November elections, when their majorities in Congress are at risk. Some in the party have said sending in ground troops would be a red line that Trump should not cross.

The administration also will probably need congressional support for an additional $200 billion he seeks to support the war. That amount of money, which Trump has said would be “nice to have,” even as he said the war was “winding down,” would be a tough vote at any time. But it poses particular risks for Republicans in an election year.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that Trump is “right to highlight the vast success of Operation Epic Fury,” the military name for the war in Iran.

“Iran desperately wants to make a deal because of how badly they are being decimated, but the President reserves all options, military or not, at all times,” she said.

Some see ‘logic’ to Trump’s approach

Rubin, the former Iran and Iraq advisor at the Pentagon, said there could be some “logic” to the president’s ever-evolving rhetorical approach to the war. He said Trump’s initial comments about ongoing negotiations, which Iran denied, could “spread suspicion and fear within the regime circles.”

“Perhaps Donald Trump or those advising him simply want the Iranians to grow so paranoid they refuse to cooperate with each other or perhaps they even turn on each other,” he said. “But then again, there’s always a danger with Donald Trump of assuming that his rhetoric is anything more than shooting from the hip.”

Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said Trump is not going to be able to fully achieve his objectives, even those that have been clearly articulated — including the complete elimination of Iran’s nuclear program — “in the current trajectory.”

And if that is the case, Smith said, the president has the option to rely on his rhetorical skills to simply say the U.S. won — and end the war.

“As I’ve jokingly said, nobody I have ever met or heard of in human history is better at exaggerating his own accomplishments than Donald Trump,” Smith said. “So go knock yourself out and claim this was some great success.”

Sloan writes for the Associated Press.