Trump Won’t Rule Out Kharg Takeover: How US Assault Could Unfold

In a possible opening strike, hundreds of U.S. Marines would surge onto the shoreline while helicopters roar above them, American warships and fighter aircraft lock down the skies and surrounding waters, and commanders deliver a blunt message to Iranian troops: lay down your arms or face a full assault.

That is the kind of fast-moving military scenario analysts say could unfold if the United States ever moved to take control of Iran’s Kharg Island, a small but enormously important Persian Gulf outpost that manages about 90% of the country’s crude oil exports and sits at the heart of Washington’s campaign to squeeze Tehran economically.

The possibility drew renewed attention Tuesday after President Donald Trump refused to dismiss the idea of seizing the island. Asked directly by Fox News chief foreign correspondent Trey Yingst during an exclusive appearance on “Special Report” whether he intended to take Kharg Island, Trump replied, “I can’t say that to you because if I did, it would be foolish.” He also noted that earlier U.S. strikes had deliberately spared the island’s oil facilities, describing them as “a chunk of the world economy.”

Retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward, who previously served as deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, told INC News there would be more than one way for American forces to approach such an operation. “There are a lot of ways to skin this cat,” he said in an interview.

According to Harward, a Marine Expeditionary Unit could lead an amphibious landing as U.S. naval and air power establishes dominance over the area, leaving Iranian forces with a chance to surrender before the fight escalates. He said the mission would likely be designed not only to secure Kharg Island, but also to avoid destroying the oil infrastructure that could be valuable to a future Iranian government after the Islamic Republic.

“The real objective at the end of the day is to minimize risk,” Harward said, stressing that such planning would aim to protect both U.S. personnel and civilians or defenders encountered on the ground. He added that limiting damage to key facilities would matter if they were eventually transferred to “a government of Iran that is focused on supporting its people, as opposed to proliferating the Islamic Revolution.”

Trump’s comments appeared to align with that strategic view, underscoring the importance of keeping Kharg Island’s oil export infrastructure intact. The president said he had previously directed U.S. forces to “hit everything, but the oil,” warning that a strike on the terminal could send shock waves through the global economy.

But military experts say capturing Kharg may be the easiest part of the mission.

Located just 16 miles off Iran’s Gulf coast, the eight-square-mile island sits well within range of Iranian missiles, drones and shore-based anti-ship weapons. While analysts believe U.S. forces could likely seize the island within hours, holding it against sustained retaliation from the nearby mainland could require a far larger and longer military commitment—raising the risk of direct war with Iran itself.

Kharg’s strategic importance predates Iran’s modern oil industry. British forces briefly occupied the island during confrontations with Persia over Herat in 1838 and again during the Anglo-Persian War in 1856, using its location near the Iranian coast to apply pressure on Tehran. Nearly a century later, Iran selected Kharg as a deep-water oil terminal because its sheltered waters could accommodate large tankers. Construction began in the late 1950s, and the terminal entered service in 1960, transforming the island into the principal outlet for Iranian crude.

“Everybody talks about seizing Kharg,” Nicholas Carl, assistant director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute, told INC News. “Iran has spent decades investing in denial capabilities designed specifically to keep U.S. forces away from its shores.” Those capabilities include anti-ship cruise missiles, drones, naval mines and hundreds of fast attack craft designed to overwhelm superior naval forces.

Military planners have long viewed Iran’s anti-access strategy as one of the most sophisticated in the Middle East. Rather than matching the U.S. Navy ship for ship, Tehran has invested heavily in asymmetric weapons intended to make any amphibious assault costly.

Harward, a former member of the National Security Council and current member of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America’s Iran Policy Project, acknowledged that once American forces were on Kharg, the primary danger would shift from conventional naval combat to missile and drone attacks launched from the nearby mainland.

“Iran doesn’t really have air power,” Harward said. “The concern is whether they launch missiles and drones at the island with U.S. forces on the ground. That’s the biggest risk.”

Harward said the viability of the operation would ultimately depend on intelligence about the number and disposition of Iranian forces, whether they had prepared booby traps or improvised explosive devices, and how Tehran might respond once American troops were ashore.

Still, he argued, such retaliation would come at a price for Tehran.

“If they start striking Kharg itself, they become accountable for damaging their own economic lifeline,” he said.

The challenge illustrates the distinction between tactical success and strategic success. Seizing an eight-square-mile island is one military problem. Defending it against sustained attacks only a short distance from Iranian territory is another.

Harward suggested Washington still has several options short of launching an amphibious assault.

With the U.S.-led blockade, reinforced Tuesday, already constraining Iran’s oil exports, he argued that additional economic pressure could target overland transportation routes, border crossings and air traffic instead of committing ground troops.

“There is still a lot you could do to enhance the economic challenges to Iran,” Harward said. “Synchronizing military, economic and political pressure is really the strategy.”

Some strategists have also questioned whether Kharg is the most valuable military objective.

Mark Fox, a retired vice admiral and a former commander of the 5th Fleet, previously told INC News that Kharg is fundamentally an oil terminal rather than a military fortress. Instead, he argued, smaller islands such as Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Musa — disputed islands near the Strait of Hormuz — could present more manageable military objectives while creating a significant strategic dilemma for Tehran because of their location along one of the world’s most important shipping lanes.

For Harward, however, the larger question extends beyond any single island.

“I think the only real end state to ensure long-term stability and security in the region is a government of Iran that renounces the Islamic Revolution and focuses on the Iranian people,” he said. That would require ending Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, halting support for proxy groups, protecting freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and ending the regime’s domestic repression.

Whether Washington ever decides to seize Kharg, military planners agree on one point: Capturing Iran’s economic lifeline would likely be measured in hours, but successfully holding it — and managing the regional escalation that could follow — would be a far longer and more complex campaign.