President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some sort of ground attack on Iran in the coming weeks, but a leading military strategy expert believes he is heading for defeat.
of Washington Post on Saturday reported THAT The Pentagon is preparing for “weeks” of ground operations in Iran, which has disrupted global energy markets in the past month by closing the Strait of Hormuz in response to airstrikes by the US and Israel.
The Post’s sources revealed that “any potential ground operation would not be a full-scale invasion and could instead involve strikes by a mix of special operations forces and conventional infantry troops” that could be used to capture Kharg Island, a key Iranian island. oil export hub, or to search for and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target shipping along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at Washington The Institute for Near East Policy told the Post that taking Kharg Island would be a very risky operation for US troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that little country with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” Eisenstadt said.
Eisenstadt’s analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who said ABC News that capturing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning that they could be “very, very vulnerable” to drones and shore-launched missiles.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King’s College London, believes the president has already measured himself, no matter what form any ground operation takes.
In one ANALYSIS published on Sunday, Freedman declared that Trump was left with “no options” for victory, as there was no sign of the Iranian regime collapsing due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now “seems to inhabit an alternate reality,” noting that “his statements have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements in quick succession and frankly delusional claims.”
Trump’s only real option at this point, Freedman continued, would simply be to declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and simply walk away. But even then, Freedman wrote, “it would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf” with no guarantee that Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
“Success in war is judged not by the damage inflicted, but by the political objectives achieved,” Freedman wrote in his conclusion. “The objective here was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new, compliant leader… Trump’s problem is that regardless of the claims he might make about damaging Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is essential, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep coming.”
Huthi
The Houthis on Saturday claimed credit for launching a ballistic missile at Israel, opening a new front in the war Trump it started almost a month ago.
like reported by Axios, the attack by the Houthis signals that the Yemen-based militia is joining the conflict to help Iran, which has been under air attack by the US and Israel for the past four weeks.
Although the Houthi missile was intercepted by Israeli defenses, it is likely only the opening of an expanding conflict across the Middle East.
Axios noted that while the Houthis entered the war by launching an attack on Israel, they could inflict the greatest damage on the US and its allies in the region by closing the Bab al-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea.
“To do so,” Axios explained, “would dramatically increase the global economic crisis that has been created by the war with Iran” and his closing of the Strait of Hormuz, which has sent global energy prices skyrocketing.
Sky News international correspondent John Sparks reported on Saturday that the Houthis’ entry into the war shows that “this crisis is widening, escalating”.
Sparks argued that the Houthis’ decision to fire a missile at Israel signals that “the geographic spread of this conflict is expanding,” adding that “the Houthis have shown the ability to attack ships in the Red Sea and the waters around the Arabian Peninsula.”
Sparks said that although Trump and the Secretary of State Marco Rubio “they have designed trust” to keep the war under control, “it is not playing like this… on the ground”.
Danny Citrinowicz, senior fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, arguing that the main value of the Houthis to Iran is not the attack on Israel, but their ability to increase economic pressure on the US.
Citrinowicz also outlined ways the Houthis could further raise the global price of energy.
“This raises a key question: whether the Houthis will further escalate targeting Arabia infrastructure and shipping lanes more directly, or whether they will retain this capability as an additional lever of pressure as the conflict evolves,” he wrote. “With each passing day of the conflict, especially in light of its expanding reach against Iran, the likelihood of this scenario playing out continues to grow. Increasingly, it’s not a matter of if, but when.”
Journalist Spencer Ackerman similarly pointed to the Houthis’ ability to wreak economic havoc as the biggest concern about their entry into the conflict.
“You thought it was bad when Iran sank the Strait of Hormuz?” it asked rhetorically. “The Houthis have already proven they can keep the Red Sea closed despite a year of fighting by the US Navy.”
Originally published by Shared dreamsthis article is republished under a Creative Commons license.
