US and Israel launch a ground attack on Iran: four possible scenarios!

【Today’s Highlights】 Defense analyst Francis Tusa believes that even if the U.S. deploys forces on a scale comparable to World War II, it would still be unable to occupy the entire coastline. He estimates that controlling the area around the strait would require hundreds of thousands of troops.

Currently, Washington is openly discussing the idea of deploying ground forces.

On the 19th, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued his strongest hint yet. “You cannot carry out a revolution from the air — that’s a fact,” he said. “There must be ground forces to increase the chances.” Netanyahu did not specify all the possible options.

Seizing Halek Island

Iran’s most strategic oil facility, Halek Island, is called the “Forbidden Island” by Iranians.

It is Iran’s lifeline, guarded by thousands of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps soldiers. Access to the island is strictly restricted.

Last week, the U.S. carried out strikes against military targets on the island. Trump stated that the attack “completely destroyed” facilities ranging from air defense systems to drone launch sites, paving the way for amphibious landings. This was a bold and highly risky offensive launched by Trump against the Iranian regime.

Halek Island is about 6 kilometers long and 3 kilometers wide, but the force needed to seize it might be far more than 2,200 U.S. Marines, depending on the number of defenders on the island. Deploying twice as many Marines would be more militarily sound, even though Marine expeditionary units are self-sufficient fighting forces equipped with artillery, armored vehicles, helicopters, and F-35B vertical takeoff fighters.

Controversial Islands

The three points on the map — Abu Musa Island, Greater Tunb Island, and Lesser Tunb Island — are usually only of concern to Gulf region political experts. So when they start appearing frequently in “military intelligence,” it signals something is happening.

Sovereignty over these islands is disputed between Iran and the UAE. Currently, Iran controls them, but the UAE also claims sovereignty.

In response to U.S.-Israeli military actions, Iran launched large-scale missile and drone attacks in the Gulf, with the UAE bearing much of the brunt. These three islands are strategically important. The IRGC has bases on these islands, located at the throat of the Strait of Hormuz, providing key surveillance points and short-range missile launch sites.

UAE political scientist Abdul-Halik Abdulrahman said, “These three islands are crucial for ‘recapturing the Strait of Hormuz’ from Iran. The Strait of Hormuz does not belong to Iran.”

Attacking these islands could be combined with the larger Gasham Island, which is closer to Iran and has an underground missile base.

Michael Stephens, a Gulf security expert at the Royal United Services Institute, said these islands are small and relatively easy for the U.S. to target. However, considering Iran’s extensive deployment along the long Gulf coastline, “taking these islands” would be just a small step toward reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

Striking Coastal Targets

U.S. Marines could begin operations against Iran’s submarines and drones hidden deep within coastal tunnels. If the UK participates, special forces including the UK’s Special Boat Service might operate alongside.

Another key mission for the Marines could be to prevent Iran from taking a “nuclear option”: laying mines at the strait’s entrance or along its route.

Marine teams could use the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft to infiltrate inland, establish small bases for targeted strikes, or even seize territory. This would be an extremely risky operation, with success depending on how well the U.S. and Israel understand Iran’s military intelligence in the region.

To force regime change in Iran, besides full-scale actions, a limited coastal invasion might be considered to ensure the strait remains unattackable. This would require larger forces and higher risks; however, if a foothold is established, it might ultimately pressure Iran to compromise.

Defense analyst Francis Tusa believes that even if the U.S. deploys forces on a scale comparable to World War II, it would still be unable to occupy the entire coastline. He estimates that controlling the surrounding areas of the strait would require hundreds of thousands of troops.

He said, launching a ground assault on Iran’s fortified defenses “could repeat Gallipoli’s disaster,” referencing the catastrophic WWI campaign. Using V-22 Ospreys for pinpoint strikes on military targets might be more attractive but also carries significant risks.

Opening a Northern Front

Early in the conflict, the White House proposed persuading Kurdish dissidents to rise up inside Iran or to enter Iran from Iraq to incite insurgency.

This idea was met with indifference among Iraqi Kurds, despite their close ties with the U.S.

The region’s leaders are hesitant, unwilling to become more of a target for Iran without substantial guarantees of U.S. ground support.

Iranian Kurdish groups are small, with only a few thousand fighters armed mainly with light weapons. However, their area could serve as a staging ground for larger U.S. military operations or as a springboard for subsequent objectives.

Of course, all these options face a major problem — they do not guarantee an early end to the conflict.

Stephens said Tehran still has the capacity to escalate. “What if Iran responds by destroying the Tanura oil port in Saudi Arabia?” he asked. “Iran’s current strategy makes it difficult for us to predict what price they will demand for any attack.”

This article was published on The Times (UK) website on March 20, titled “What Could a Ground Attack on Iran Look Like? An Analysis of Various Scenarios,” authored by Richard Spence, Michael Evans, and Charlie Parker.