CLICK TO LISTEN TO THE PLAIN TRUTH TODAY 7:11 BROADCAST: The Kharg Island Trap: How a War-Winning Plan Could Backfire

The Kharg Island Trap: How a War-Winning Plan Could Backfire

00:00

All right, what’s going on everyone? So, pretty hectic day all things considered when uh when looking at the war in Iran. We got a couple things worth getting into here. First off, we’ve got new reporting that President Trump believes a ground operation in Iran, specifically on one of the islands in the Persian Gulf, could be enough to shock the Iranian regime into surrendering. Now, that of course comes as a number of US forces continue to move into the region with the first group of Marines arriving

00:26

today, tomorrow, Saturday, sometime in the next couple days. Uh we also have a very hawkish organization, Foundations for Defense of Democracies, looking at that plan to take Hog Island and say, “Mr. President, please don’t do that.” They argue that it could get the United States in over our head, be walking into a trap that we don’t want to uh don’t want to be a part of. And then finally, President Trump said that talks are going well with the Iranian regime right now. So, he has postponed strikes

00:54

against the Iranian energy infrastructure for 10 more days. Let’s go ahead and get started. Now, of course, every one of these articles will be linked in the description below. We’re starting out with a report in the Times of Israel where they say an official from one of the countries mediating between the United States and Iran tells the Times of Israel that President Trump appears to be leaning towards a US ground operation with Washington convinced that Tyrron will buckle under such military pressure.

01:21

They say the official says the US privately recognizes that Iran is not likely to agree to the concessions presented in Washington’s 15-point plan and has dispatched thousands of troops to the region in order to capture Tyrron’s Harg Island on Trump’s orders. We’re going to go to a map here real quick to talk about where it is. This is getting all the focus right now. Oil Island, Har Island, KHRG, uh here in the northern portion of the Persian Gulf. This island is what all of a sudden like the talking heads on all

01:52

the news outlets have been saying this is the thing. This is what we have to take. You do this and we win the war. Senator Lindsey Graham has talked about that. I think General Kellogg even talked about that a couple days ago. This is where 90% of Iranian oil exports move through. So yes, it would be a problem for Iran losing this. Personal assessment is I think we are overestimating what taking this island would do to the negotiating position within the regime. And I don’t think I’m alone in that assessment. A lot of the

02:22

analysts we’ve looked at and have quoted in recent days to include senior former officials from SICOM, General Votel in a video earlier today, they look at this and say, “Yes, we can, but to what end? What exactly are we going to accomplish?” And we’ve talked through the challenges of yes, the US can put forces on Hog Island. Yes, we can take over that island. Uh we could have persistent air coverage overhead. That’s something our military is capable of doing. But does it link up with

02:49

operational or strategic objectives? And the interesting aspect from FDD, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, is the points that they argue is not just that it wouldn’t be a good tradeoff, but that it would actually be a trap that the United States is walking into. Again, pretty notable. FDD is an organ, very hawkish organization. They hate the Iranian regime and I would argue have been advocating for some sort of regime change war with Iran for a long time. So for them to come out and look at this and say, “Hey, let’s be

Read More

03:23

careful.” I think it’s the type of thing that that deserves some attention. In their article titled, “Why seizing Iran’s Harg Island Could be a trap of America’s own making,” they say Trump has potentially set his sights on seizing Iran’s Harg Island, Iran’s vital oil export hub, in hopes of securing a quick opening to the straight and a decisive end to the conflict. To to back out real quick, this is another one where it’s not clear. We’re kind of conflating taking this island with the

03:50

opening of the Straight of Hormuz. That will not do it by force. It just can’t. Um, no matter how we get men uh and women onto this island to hold it, holding that island does not automatically open the straight of Hormuz over here, it could be a negotiating, you know, can be leverage in negotiations. But a lot of it, I think, at this point is being um conflated as to one and the same things like taking this island would give us control over the straight. That’s that’s not the situation here. They say an

04:20

operation to seize Hog Island is likely to have the opposite effect by incurring significant costs for little operational or strategic gains that can be achieved more effectively through other means. Indeed, a seizure and occupation of Hogar Island is more likely to expand and extend the war than it is to deliver any sort of decisive victory. You know, this is the type of stuff that makes me wonder if we’re just watching a massive deception operation. Right? There is so much talk about this little island and

04:47

most of the experts we hear from say yeah it’s not going to do it. They also talk about how taking other islands like Keshum or what was the one right uh just to the east of Keshum that we talked about earlier in today’s video. None of these islands are going to be like the magical thing that ends the war. And you have to assume that there’s enough senior planners involved in this process to be able to provide that insight to the president and the national security team as they’re making these decisions.

05:13

FDD says, quote, “Instead of increasing US leverage over Iran, seizing Hog Island would enhance Tyrron’s ability to inflict costs on Washington. Iran is currently limited to primarily using its diminishing long range arsenal. Uh but placing US troops on the island would allow Iran to employ much more of that arsenal. Any American casualties then inflicted would increase political pressure on the Trump administration to end operations. Seizing Hog Island may encourage Thrron to prolong the conflict

05:43

if it sees an opportunity to exact mounting costs. In so many words, we would be putting our personnel in range of the Iranian munitions. right now in order to strike US personnel. We know that US forces have been moved out of a lot of the bases in the region. So even going after those bases is not accomplishing striking and and killing or wounding American service members. This would be moving directly into their range. And I don’t care if we’re down 100% in terms of their long range drone

06:12

and missile launches. This is a different weapon system. So the long range Shahi drones could be used against Hark Island. the missiles, intermediate range, could be used, I think, against Arg Island. But you’re talking about short range missiles to a degree, multiple launch rocket systems, maybe even cannon artillery with certain types of rounds, uh, medium-range strike drones, all of that is within range of Hog Island that it’s not really anything that we’ve seen utilized so far in this

06:39

conflict. Now, there’s a lot of ways to go about mitigating that, right? to get a MLRS system somewhere near this coastline to fire unguided munitions at this island. You know, if we have persistent air coverage, that MLRS probably is not going to survive very long. I got it. There are a lot of other systems in the Iranian arsenal that would be open to being used if we put personnel this close. And the argument from FDD is that there’s a lot more risks there than there are benefits. They say, quote, “There’s an immense

07:09

risk of mission creep inherent to seizing the island. Once US forces occupy it, any withdrawal could be seen as a defeat for Washington. If the troops positioned there take heavy casualties from Iranian fire emanating on the mainland and air power alone is not sufficient to completely remove the threat, it is not hard to see how a subsequent seizure of coastal areas in the name of force protection could materialize. Iran fighting a war for regime survival would have natural advantages in a ground war on its own

07:38

soil against the United States which entered this conflict seeking a quick, relatively lowcost and decisive outcome rather than a costly and extended contest of wills. Something I want to call out here is how the messaging and the information aspect would be applied. So, as soon as we put troops on the ground in a hog island, look, if we say that we’re only going to be there for a week, that’s the kind of messaging that you don’t really want to put out there in a war is is tell your enemy exactly

08:05

how long you’re going to be in a certain place and when you plan to xfill. Again, long long time argument against our our ongoing conversations with the Taliban of when we are going to be drawing down because it allowed them to just sit by and wait in many cases. In fact, sticking with the war in Afghanistan, I was there in 2012 as we were drawing down equipment in certain areas of the east. And we tried to keep it a relative secret. We didn’t want this well-known because of the PR aspect of this. But

08:34

the day that the last piece of equipment pulled out from the one I’m thinking of was COP Caligouch up in Nangahar Valley. The last US truck pulled out. The Taliban launched one rocket at the base, filmed it, and said that they forced the Americans to leave the Nangahar Valley. Same thing here. It opens the door. As soon as we put boots there, it opens the door to the minute they leave, Iran can say they forced the United States to evacuate the area and leave Iranian territory. That is a pretty significant

09:03

information operation win in this conflict that is not likely to end anytime soon. Now, one of the major comparisons that we’ve seen from day one of this, and I think it’s on the one hand rational, on the other hand, maybe a little bit overplayed, is the comparisons to Iraq specifically, the military success at the outset of the conflict, and then, you know, we’re there fighting 10 plus years, trying to build a state that that arguably uh did not work out all that well, to say the least. The Wall Street Journal had an

09:34

article yesterday talking about this, asking, “Are we making the same mistakes?” And I don’t know, it’s early, but I think it’s the type of thing worth keeping in mind. We’ve talked about this before. Anytime a nation, this is a personal belief, but anytime our nation puts our sons and daughters in harm’s way, I think it is our responsibility as the public to constantly make sure that we are we are not taking that sacrifice lightly and that we’re making sure that

09:58

if we are asking them to literally risk their lives, that they are doing so for good reason. And we have a plan to see this thing through to completion. We’re not just continuing on, continuing on, continuing on like we saw in Vietnam and like we saw for a good chunk of the global war on terror. So, are we, you know, repeating what happened in Iraq? Maybe, maybe not. I think it’s a little too early to say that definitively. Um, but I think it’s worthwhile for everybody to have that back of mind just

10:26

so we can do everything we can to avoid that same scenario. Wall Street Journal article here. They say, quote, “There are early warning signs that the Iran war has succumbed to some of the same pitfalls that plagued Iraq and other overseas conflicts, including questions over unclear aims, insufficient planning for contingencies, and overly optimistic assumptions. Like Iraq, the planning focused heavily on America’s spectacular military might, but far less on the consequences of what might happen next.

10:53

And like Iraq, experts who may have disagreed were sidelined or ignored. And you know, they’re they are kind of picking what fits with the argument here, but I think it’s valid in what they’re raising. Again, now we’re talking about seizing Har Island in the Persian Gulf, which didn’t really seem to be in the cards when this war kicked off. And the reason stated reason for doing that is helping to open the straight of Hormuz. Again, that was not listed as one of the, you know, the key

11:19

objectives of this war. It didn’t need to be because the straight was technically open at that point, right? Everything was flowing through. So, I can understand where they’re coming from with unclear aims. The aims have shifted a little bit. At times, we’ve talked about regime change or not regime change pretty consistent with talking about their nuclear program, their air force, their navy, and their missile program proxies. Sometimes in that conversation, sometimes not. Even looking at the 15-point plan just

11:46

presented by the United States, it talks about addressing the nuclear program at some point in the or excuse me, the uh the missile program at some point in the future. So that goes from being a key war aim to why don’t we get back to that one. So I think it’s a fair assessment, a fair criticism to say to to to label it unclear aims or at the very least changing aims depending on you who you hear from. The insufficient planning for contingencies and overly optimistic assumptions. I think the assumption

12:15

plays into what we’re hearing right now about a ground operation could be enough to topple the regime. We heard a lot of reporting in the opening days that the idea was an overwhelming strike campaign could force the IRGC to surrender or maybe allow the people to rise up and take back their government. That didn’t happen. There’s no indications right now that either of those things are on the verge of happening. And when it comes to the planning for contingencies, it’s very hard to say that we did that well.

12:42

If you look at some of the US bases in the region that were not and still are not from the drone footage we’re seeing fully prepared to counter the threat of Iranian drones, be the short-range FPVs from Iraqi militias or the long range shahad drones raining down onto buildings in Kuwait for instance that did not have overhead cover or counter drone measures in place. Doesn’t look like they were ready. Of course, we had the issue of getting the American people, American citizens out of the

13:08

region after the fighting had begun. And now we’re in the process of moving a significant number of forces into the region for possibly some sort of ground operation. Again, that, you know, might be, you know, step two, step three, step four, but it’s very hard to look at all of that and say we were 100% ready to go when this kicked off. It looks like we maybe had not had enough planning for some of these contingencies, didn’t have everything in line. So, I think there’s a lot of this article that does ring

13:37

true. Now, whether that translates directly into a long-term quagmire that was the Iraq war, it’s to be seen, right? We’re still very, very early in this conflict. Now, President Trump just a few minutes ago actually postponed his threat or said the threat still stands, but we are not going to strike Iranian energy infrastructure for another 10 days. So, if you recall, this threat was made uh about a coming up on a week ago, and he said 48 hours. Well, 48 hours was was fast approaching. The markets were

14:08

getting ready to open Monday morning. And all of a sudden, it was five days. We’ve had very good talks. Five days. We’ll get back to it. Well, five days is set to expire sometime tomorrow, maybe tomorrow night into Saturday morning after markets close. Something to keep in mind. And just a few moments ago, President Trump said talks are actually going very well. So, we’ll wait 10 days now to allow these talks to continue. very difficult at this point to understand what exactly is happening

14:33

with the talks because we’re hearing very conflicting news from the two sides. Now, uh, Tassinim, this is an Iranian source, so keep that in mind. They said they have made clear its response that the enemy’s aggressive acts of assassination must end. They’re talking about their terms to end the war. So, no more assassination attempts on Iranian leaders. Concrete condition should be established to ensure that the war does not start again. compensation and war reparations must be guaranteed

15:01

and clearly determined and the end of the war should be implemented on all fronts and for all resistance groups that took part in this battle throughout the region. So they’re talking about an end of the war not just in Iran but one that is specifically getting a lot of attention here is of course the Iraqi militias Lebanese Hezbollah where there is an increasing fight escalating fight between Israel and Hezbollah over the course of the last couple weeks. So Iran is saying one of their terms of ending

15:25

the war, Israel and Hezbollah have to stop fighting as well. In fact, this case, they’re saying Israel has to stop any attacks into Lebanon against Hezbollah. Hard to see all of those being agreed to at this point. Generally, what we’re seeing are both sides coming out with their maximalist aims, and it doesn’t seem like there’s really any overlap, hardly at all. So, I wouldn’t say that maybe talks are happening. It’s hard to look at this and say that something is on the verge of a

15:50

breakthrough. And a part of that is Iran is very very skeptical of dealing with the United States right now. And again, I would like to see a lot of these US objectives accomplished. But we have to understand where Iran is coming from when we’re laying these things out. In TASN news, it said the source emphasized that it is clear to Iran that the US’s claim about negotiations is merely a third deception, saying the Americans pursue several goals under the guise of claiming negotiations. When they say the

16:17

third, the first was the 12-day war where we were actively in negotiations. Then Israel began bombing uh strikes in Thran or in Iran. The second was the leadup to this conflict where we talked about ongoing negotiations. Had the next round planned and then US and Israeli strikes began. So from the Iranian perspective, negotiations are just a cover for war. And I hate that, but like let’s be real. Let’s be honest. if you’re in their situation, that’s what it has been for the last nine months. So

16:48

why would you assume anything different this time? They say the source emphasized that the first uh deception is to deceive the world by presenting an apparently peaceful image that the US seeks an end to the war. The second is to keep global oil prices low and the third is to buy time to prepare for new action in southern Iran with a ground force invasion. So, kind of bring it back full circle, Iran is predicting along with Israel and a number of sources in the United States that ground troops are likely to be utilized here in

Read More

17:19

the very near future. And from Iran’s perspective, the negotiations, the talks, the possibility of a ceasefire, a peace deal is just deception. They don’t think the United States or Israel has any intention to actually see this thing through at the negotiating table right now. They are planning for a continuation of hostilities. So to that end, we’ve now got 10 more days until President Trump says we’re going after the Iranian energy infrastructure, which be a major shock, a significant

17:43

escalation in this conflict. And between now and then, there should be a number somewhere between, call it five and 10,000 minimum US forces arriving at the could be used for some sort of ground operation. So that is what we’re going to keep an eye on. Now, for anyone interested, we’ve started consolidating all of our content on Substack. So everything’s there. It’s a great platform, by the way. used to use it a while ago, went away, but it’s super clean, very effective. Uh they do a good

18:09

job uh kind of being very user friendly in my experience. A lot of great creators there. But on Substack, we’re loading long form content that you see on YouTube here, short form content that goes on like Tik Tok and Instagram, pictures and videos that we’re pulling off of Telegram channels and and kind of the research articles and podcasts, the research that goes into making these videos that doesn’t always make it into the finished product. It’s all over there on Substack as well as a uh a

18:35

membersonly chat, kind of a community chat that I think is really cool. Really good uh really good setup so far and I like how that’s been been going. So, if interested, check that out. Substack linked in the description below. That’s all we got for now. Thanks for watching and I’ll see youall next time.