Trump’s options: Will seizing Iran’s Kharg Island solve Strait of Hormuz blockade?

Follow our live coverage here.

LONDON – When the United States and Israel launched their initial strikes against Iran, politicians and strategists in Washington and other Western capitals agreed on one point: There would be no US “boots on the ground” inside Iran.

But as fighting now enters its fifth week, a ground offensive is precisely what US President Donald Trump is contemplating. He has not made the final decision, yet there is no question that preparations for an incursion are serious and in a very advanced stage.

A total of 10,000 troops from elite units of the US military have recently been deployed to the Middle East. The new arrivals are led by an amphibious strike group consisting of the helicopter carrier USS Tripoli, carrying about 3,500 US marines, two amphibious assault ships, and two warships. They are now within striking range of Iran.

Reinforcements include 2,000 to 3,000 paratroopers from the US Army’s elite 82nd Airborne Division, which began arriving in the Middle East on March 30, and special operation units such as the US Navy SEALs and Army Rangers. An additional 2,500 marines are expected to arrive by mid-April.

If any final confirmation of US intentions was needed, this comes in the form of a constant stream of A-10 “Warthog” attack aircraft making their way from the US through air bases in Britain and heading for the Middle East. The Warthogs are used to provide close air support to US ground forces, and although some were in the region since the start of the war on Feb 28, more are arriving now at a fast pace.

The question is, therefore, not whether the US will deploy troops on Iranian soil, but where and when it will do so.

Trump’s obsession with Kharg Island

Mr Trump has long been obsessed with seizing Kharg Island, the 20 sq km rocky formation in the northern part of the Gulf. As far back as 1988 – long before he had any realistic prospects to reach the White House – Mr Trump claimed that he would “do a number on Kharg island”.

It is easy to see why Mr Trump is fascinated with Kharg, which lies about 25km off Iran’s south-western coast.

The waters around Iran’s coastlines are shallow, so around 90 per cent of Iran’s oil exports are piped to Kharg, which can accommodate giant tankers capable of carrying up to two million barrels of crude oil.

Whoever holds Kharg Island effectively holds the key to Iran’s economic lifeline.

US aircraft bombed Iran’s military installations on the island on March 13, and Mr Trump recently boasted that the US could take the island “very easily”. However, that is a typical Trumpian exaggeration.

Kharg’s potential landing sites and suitable coastal sections have already been analysed and identified by US intelligence services for some time, and these will have to be seized first before waves of marines land and bring in their amphibious craft, wheeled armoured personnel carriers and anti-aircraft equipment.

There is no question that the US will prevail, although its military will have to prepare for the worst, including close-quarters combat and the presence of minefields.

However, the main doubts concern the political purpose of such an operation.

If Mr Trump orders the seizure of the island, he hopes that this would persuade Iran to open up the Strait of Hormuz, the international waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil flows. His message would be that if Iran continues to obstruct other Gulf states from exporting their oil, Iran will not be able to sell its oil either.

But the US would have to occupy Kharg for months before Iran completely runs out of revenues, and the Iranians are sure to retaliate by bombing the oil and gas installations of the Arab Gulf monarchies. The result would be another catastrophic jump in the global price of oil and widespread shortages of energy resources, well before Iran faces the need to surrender.

Mr Trump prefers to leave others in suspense. He told journalists recently: “Maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don’t.” Yet he has never explained how such a seizure would force Iran into submission. The speculation about the island is so intense that one has to wonder if it is all part of a public deception plan.

Other islands in the Hormuz Strait

A more practical alternative would be for the US to seize other islands inside the Hormuz Strait. These include tiny Larak Island, just offshore from the key Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, which sits right on the strait. Iran is currently making all sea traffic pass by this island and is allegedly collecting US$2 million (S$2.6 million) from each foreign vessel.

There is also Qeshm, the Gulf’s largest island, where Iran is suspected of housing underground missiles and drones. And there are three further islands – Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs – whose ownership is disputed between Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), but are all currently under Iranian control.

Seizing all these islands would hamper Iran’s ability to block the strait, as well as reassure US allies in the region that Washington will not tolerate Iran’s exclusive control over this international waterway.

Any US occupation of Abu Musa and the Tunbs islands would also play to Arab national pride at Iran’s expense.

The islands were grabbed by Iran from the UAE just one day before the Emirates got their independence from Britain in 1971, and their return to Emirati control has long been one theme uniting all Arab monarchies.

But even if the US were to control these islands, Iran could continue to use drones and uncrewed surface vessels to hit tankers, so the shipping risk will remain.

Iranian claims to have mined the Hormuz waterway should not be taken too seriously.

Some reports have suggested that Iran has dropped acoustic mines into the strait, which detonate based on the sound of particular ships as they move through the water. Perhaps, but such mines are unlikely to be numerous, and Iran will not wish to mine the entire waterway, if only because this would also prevent Iranian oil exports from moving.

Still, if the US is determined to force open the Strait of Hormuz, it would have to occupy the islands for weeks, if not months. The US Navy would also need to provide naval escorts to the many oil and liquefied gas tankers, which otherwise would still consider passage through Hormuz far too risky.

Iran may lose the ability to seal the Hormuz Strait, but it will retain the ability to deter others from using it.

The nuclear option?

Another option would be the seizure of Iran’s estimated 440kg of highly enriched uranium, which can be further processed to manufacture a nuclear bomb. Mr Trump has refused to say whether this is being contemplated, but on March 28, he referred approvingly to conservative social media commentators who urged him to “get the uranium”.

The material is believed to lie underneath debris at fortified Iranian sites near Isfahan in central Iran, and perhaps also at Natanz, a city farther north. Both sites were hit hard by the US and Israel in June 2025 and, again, during the current campaign.

The advantage in recovering the enriched uranium is that such an operation will not only put an end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions for many years to come, but will also allow Mr Trump to claim, with some degree of credibility, that he has won the war.

However, the obstacles to such an operation are daunting.

The nuclear sites will first have to be secured by US forces, who will need to carve a large defence perimeter to protect the landed troops from Iranian artillery and drone attacks. So, in effect, the US would have to occupy chunks of territory inside Iran.

The Iranians have also covered the nuclear sites with soil and concrete, so US troops will need heavy drilling equipment to get through collapsed tunnels, which may also be booby-trapped. Unless US intelligence knows precisely where the material is, such an operation may take days, perhaps even a week. And even if the enriched uranium is found, it is likely to be stored in cylinders, which must be removed by forces specially trained to handle radioactive material.

If the operation fails, it is likely to do so with many US military casualties and with a political humiliation every bit as stinging as the one suffered by then US President Jimmy Carter’s botched attempt to rescue US Embassy hostages from Iran in April 1980.

For all these reasons, as well as the need for strategic surprise, Mr Trump is keeping everyone guessing. One moment, he is threatening to “obliterate” Iranian capabilities, while the next, he vows to order all US troops back home, leaving all the problems the war created to others to sort out.

Still, the US leader will have to choose in the next few days. None of the ground operations under consideration guarantees victory. And all threaten to draw the US even deeper into this war.