Another helpful column, although I have to question the seriousness of any idea that involves both negotiation and Donald Trump. With the U.S. president, there is genuine danger but never seriousness, or for that matter anything else resembling adulthood.
This proposal by Richard Haass has tremendous value because it offers a peaceful process for halting a rapidly escalating war by avoiding an almost certain order by President Trump of deploying military boots on the ground in Iran. On March 14, 2026, two weeks after the beginning of America's war with Iran on February 28th, the Pentagon ordered the deployment of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, consisting of approximately 2,500 combat ground troops, to depart from Japan aboard the USS Tripoli (LHA-7) bound for Iran. Estimates on ocean transit time for the USS Tripoli are between 10 - 14 days, meaning that the Marines will arrive in the waters off Iran sometime this month between March 24 and March 28, 2026. The USS Tripoli is essentially a helicopter attack carrier. Indeed, it's designation as LHA-7 stands for "Landing Helicopter Attack." As a Marine combat veteran from the Vietnam war, I know from personal experience what the mission is for the USS Tripoli (LHA-7), because I was similarly deployed by helicopter into ground combat in South Vietnam on several missions launched off the USS Tripoli (LPH-10) in 1968. The LPH-10 was the predecessor of the modern LHA-7. As in Vietnam, The USS Tripoli is a sea-based fast reaction helicopter attack carrier designed to deploy large numbers of Marines quickly into direct combat on the ground wherever they are critically needed in the most rapid manner possible. Along with a majority of Americans, I am absolutely opposed to putting “boots on the ground” in Iran in what could become another endless war in the Middle East. Yet, there is no reason why President Trump would be sending a unit of Marines to Iran aboard a helicopter attack carrier other than for the purpose of dropping them into combat on the ground. I hope Haass' proposal receives widespread consideration, and quickly, before the Marines arrive in the waters off Iran. For them to die in this unnecessary war would be immoral.
With a conventional, normal administration in control, I would wholeheartedly support Haas' creative Hormuz plan, but we are dealing with an administration loaded with dunces leading the charge who strut, swagger, exaggerate and lie and most likely would fumble "bigly" getting this operation off the ground. They are really good at damaging, degrading or destroying vessels,nuclear and ballistic missile sites, infrastructure, killing etc. but organizing the intricacies of this plan, as sensible as it is, seems doubtful. I have faith in the military if freed from their handlers, but I fear the bureaucrats lack the sophistication to successfully pull off a maneuver of this scope.
There is "on the ground" and there is raiding. Not the same thing.
This would be a bloody piece of cake for a well trained Marine or Ranger unit.
Every military installation on Kharq Island has been destroyed, there is and will be unparalled close air support and air supremacy, the Iranians cannot hope to reinforce, and you can bet the Marines/Rangers will be there long before the time table you lay out.
The Iranians would wake up with the US holding the oil terminal and storage that accountas for 96% of Iranian transport of crude oil and the the lionshare of their revenue.
Your take is extremely optimistic. A long time ago, I was in a Ranger battalion and I see some big problems you gloss over.
Seizing the terminal would in fact be fairly straight forward. Holding it would be less so. The Russians have provided Iran with fiber optic FPV drones that have ranges up to and exceeding twenty miles. These are quite resistent to jamming by electronic warfare. And the US, contrary to what President Trump says, does not have a good counter to these.
The island is close to the Iranian mainland, is totally flat, and has basically nothing in the way of cover and concealment. These FPV drones don’t need radio communication so they can be launched from bunkers. The US would need to provide food and water to whomever occupies the terminal and that resupply would be vulnerable to drones as would the occupiers.
And the more obvious point is what value does the US achieve by occupying the Island? Could they choke off the minimal amount of energy that Iran is getting out? Probably. But so what?
Iran’s regime is facing an existential threat. Do you think depriving them of a little revenue will make them suddenly fold? I don’t. If I were in their shoes it would affect me not at all.
So we put our soldiers or marines at risk for pretty much no real benefit. It seems to me that Iran is in a pretty good position. Maybe not long term, but for now. Cutting off traffic for Iran does not make the spiking energy prices any better. And Iran can bring in the stuff they need over land from Central Asia.
While seizing the island might make Trump and people like you feel slightly less impotent, will it really provide the quick fix that you are craving? In my judgment, probably not. This thing is going to drag on for a long time and probably end in some kind of negotiated settlement that gives the Iranian regime some kind of security guarantees going forward. They care less about deprivation and a bad economy than the leaders of democracies do. Democratic leaders answer to voters.
And negotiations become problematic because they keep killing off many of the actors who could negotiate on behalf of the regime. And will the Iranians trust Trump or Israel? I wouldn’t if I were them. Trump has already torn up numerous deals with Iran. And Bibi wears the pants in the US-Israel relationship. He will do what he wants no matter what Trump might agree to with the Iranians. So that diminishes the Iranians enthusiasm for negotiation.
You are proposing a simple, feel-good solution for a problem that is not so simple. I expect high energy prices to drag on for a very long time. Even if there was a resolution today, the high prices would linger for several months. And the long-term uncertainty could make that longer.
Who knows what happens? I don’t. But my best guess is a sustained economic dislocation. Everyone with a brain knew Iran would do exactly what they have done. That included the generals in the Pentagon. But only one guy’s opinion mattered here and it turned out to be the opinion of the least thoughtful, most poorly informed, most impulsive person. And we will have to live with the consequences for a while.
Without minimizing the significance of FPV drones -- an antiquated but effective technology that goes back to the Vietnam War Era TOW missile guidance systems -- it is not the great threat you indicate.
Kharq Island is 25 kilometers off shore and an FPV has to fly over a body of water which makes detection infinitely easier and then operate at its farthest range. Only a small subset of Russian FPVs operate at that distance and I question whether the Russians have or have not shared that weapon given their own demands in Ukraine.
Like a tracer round, the use of FPVs reveals the point from which it was launched and it will have to be in extremely close proximity to the watersedge in Iran, within a few kilometers.
Given total air supremacy the US will have a field day with the Iranian troops assigned to launch those weapons. Worth noting this is a weapon with which they have zero familiarity and it requires monitoring whilst in flight.
So, fair play to noting its possibilities, highly unlikely it becomes a factor and very likely it invites harsh retribution.
There is no current data indicating that the Iranians directly possess FPV tech though there is data showing employment by Hezbollah in Lebanon.
As to the benefit of American control of Kharq Island, the answer is at the end of one's nose -- a significanct loss of control by the Ayatollah regime of both their economy and sovereignty at low cost. This is not insignificant and puts Iran's ability to pay its bills in jeopardy immediately plus denies the IRGC and other bad actors sources of refined product.
Energy accounts for 80% of Iranian exports and 100% of its Ayatollah class graft and corruption.
Iran already has difficulty collecting taxes, its largest source of government income and now oil -- formerly its largest source and now its second largest.
In the dismantling of this evil regime, this can only be taken as a hard stroke likely to further undermine the survivability of the regime.
There is no scenario in which this regime reconstitutes itself, is allowed to continue to rule Iran, can obtain the support of the people by any means, and survives, It's over.
The tide will turn when the Iranian military -- not the Quds, the IRGC, the Basij -- turn against the regime. They have guns. The people do not. Yet.
The US will solve the issue of the Strait of Hormuz and the implications of the energy marketplace will slowly dissolve thereafter. Much of the pricing in the marketplace is simply war hysteria and speculation. This looks wildly different in two weeks.
Bottom line -- the US/Israel continues to pound the ever living snot out of Iran, continues to decapitate leadership, continues to destroy with impunity any and all infrastructure involved with missiles, drones, the IRGC, the Ayatollahs, and the administration of any form of civilian repression. I like the US position.
I envy your service with the Ranger Regiment. In my day, all the Regulars had to go to Airborne/Ranger schools but there was no RR. I went to VMI and served in the combat engineers.
I live in Poland. I formerly lived twice in Russia, totalling a bit over four years. I follow events in Ukraine closely. Three years into that war I called it that Russia would lose. I lived in Russia during the 2008 Georgia War and the Russian army and especially the Aerospace Forces performed very poorly. When I saw in early 2022 that nothing had improved in the fourteen years between 2008 and 2022, I knew that Russia was screwed.
When I listen to a lot of Americans saying US victory is inevitable, I hear the likes of Putin spokesman Dimitri Peskov, or propagandists like Solovyov, or Kiselyov telling me that Kyiv would fall in a week. Wishful thinking does not determine the outcome.
Interesting background. Love to hear more over a coffee.
When the Russians invaded Ukraine, I immediately called a Brother Rat who had been the senior adviser to the International Division in southern Iraq during the Iraq War and asked his opinion as to the fighting characteristics of the Ukrainians. I believe they supplied a brigade.
He was very high on their fighting capabilities and said they would not be a pushover and that since 2014, the Ukrainians had been preparing for the next shoe to drop.
This was Day Two of the war.
Fast forward, the Ukrainians have discharged themselves in an extraordinary manner and the Russians turn out to be an ineffective medieval army w some modestly good gear.
The Ukrainians, during the Soviet Era, were the foremost weapons designers and manufacturers in the USSR. They have re-emerged and have begun to manufacture and deploy home designed gear -- the Flamingo cruise missile being a great example -- that is easy to build, utilizes readily available subassemblies, and surpasses many of the operating characteristics of the best American gear -- range and warhead.
Previous comment should have said three weeks into the Ukraine War not three years.
And what I am watching in Ukraine with weapons is far more significant than you seem to appreciate. Precision low yield weapons that are cheap are a game changer. And the next move is going to be drone swarms. One fiber optic drone controlling dozens (minimum) of other drones is formiddable. And the US has no real solution to that.
I agree completely that FPV drones in a tactical infantry scheme are a game changer. Every war creates a new tactical initiative.
I don't think they are significant when the US is strategically bombing the shit out of Iran, decapitating its leadership, destroying missile factories/stockpiles, destroying drone factories/stockpiles, destroying every IRGC HQ building/motorpool/barracks/warehouse, and destroying every Basij and police building in the entire country.
The US is not going to make a deal with dead or alive Ayatollahs and will bomb them until they are all gone.
The Ayatollahs/IRGC are losing communications and control over subordinate units that are also being destroyed. The Ayatollahs are going to simply disappear, literally,.
At some time, all resistance will succumb to the sheer magnitude of the bombing. The US doesn't have to hurry that.
As to the impact on energy markets -- the US doesn't get a drop of Iranian oil. Venezuela -- Chevron in particular -- is already doubling production and export.
My first job after grad school and the Army was in the C-suite woring for the President as an ADC. I disagree completely that anything currently going on in Iran as it relates to energy will have an impact longer than 90 days. That could change, but right now the US has been careful in its target selection.
The pundits said it would take more than 5 years to increase Veneuelan production and export, but it has already begun and contrary to the XOM CEO, Americans are in the country right now working on production revitalization.
Iran is almost three times the size of Texas with lots of mountains and deserts. You can put about 2500 drones in a 40 foot container. A container on a chassis that can be easily moved is pretty dang hard to take out.
Not sure why you have such endless optimism. Iran has a fair amount of experience at hiding things. It is quite possible for an army to win every battle and still lose the war. Think us and the Soviets in Afghanistan. Or us in Vietnam. All the mullahs have to do to win is survive.
Ukraine has been building drones all over the country, and the Russians, who have advanced satellite capabilities, have mostly not found the workshops.
Your context is us fighting a near peer enemy. That is not the war Iran has chosen to fight.
I was there before there was a Regiment. I mean technically we were part of 75th Infantry Regiment but there was no regimental commander or headquarters. The Battalion commanders of the two independent battalions reported directly to higher headquarters. The BC when I first got there was a VMI guy, but he was killed in an aviation accident along with the Battallion Surgeon and five other Rangers. I thought he was a good commander. The next guy was the father of Nancy Mace. A Citidel man. He wasn't a terrible guy but far less impressive than his predecessor.
I don't share your confidence at all. On paper it looks like a straight forward case, but we don't fight on paper.
The factor you seem to completely ignore is time. Time is not on our side. A dictatorship can always hold out for longer than a democracy. We are also on the way to dictatorship but are not there yet. Iranians are used to deprivation. Americans and Europeans aren't. High energy prices will affect us a lot more than low revenues will affect them. There are two wars going on here. Us bombing them with expensive weapons and them hunkering down and responding with cheap weapons. They can hold out for a long time. We can't really afford to. We have already had to pull air defense out of South Korea. Not a good idea. And we are running low on Patriot and other air defense ordanance. We have fired more Patriot munitions in two weeks than Ukraine has in the several years that they have had them. And Iran still has capable proxies who are more than capable of hitting targets directly or indirectly linked to us.
And a lot of the Gulf states are pretty unhappy. We've burned up all our alliances in Europe and the Asia-Pacific.
Not sure how much you know about the oil field. Even if the Strait only remains closed for three months, the downstream effects will last at least three years. Turning off the oil tap is not like turning off the water tap. Once oil starts pumping, stopping it has detrimental affects to short and medium term production. And a lot of these countries don't have a lot of storage to fill up. So they are going to have to turn things off and that has consequences.
This is going to be a significant economic disruption and not a short term one. And we went from having an 86 year old Ayatollah who was not extreme by Iranian standards and had a couple of bouts of cancer, to now having a much younger guy whose whole family we obliterated. Does that sound like a guy who will be eager to compromise? Not to me.
I don't see this ending quickly. Trump has permanently damaged US credibility and alliances.
The more basic question is this -- does anyone see a future Iran with the Ayatollahs -- these murderous evil assholes -- in charge of a post war Iran?
Does anyone see a future in which 8% of Iran extremists control, suppress, and murder the vast majority of Iranians?
Does anyone with modest intelligence see any prospect of negotiating a deal with these vermin?
Does anyone not see the benefit of China having to find other sources of oil?
Guys like Richard Haas never want to face that basic question which is why they have attempted to negotiate deals that will never work, have never worked, and are simply unrealistic.
Richard is a good guy; he's not a hard man, not a realistic man, not someone who has to make hard decisions. He's a Foggy Bottom prevaricator.
Iran cannot exist with Ayatollahs in charge. The Middle East cannot revert to peace with the Ayatollahs in charge -- ask the other Middle Eastern countries, ask Saudi Arabia -- and the world cannot allow its largest funder of raw terror to survice.
Now is not a dangerous moment; it is a providential moment if the US has the balls to finish the job.
Does anybody with a brain not think the predictably roiling oil markets will not settle down when the last Ayatollah is killed?
Finish. The. Job.
God bless us all and those we send in harm's way to fix the silly decisions of our previous leaders.
I regret to inform you that military force is not a magic wand, and that a clumsy effort to use force to clean up one mess often creates several bigger messes. To truly “finish the job” would require boots on the ground for another experiment in nation-building for which one doubts the US has the patience and will. “Finish the job” is a slogan, not a plan.
The Iranians lived up to their non-proliferation agreement with the world. The “vermin” who did not, currently lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The Iranian regime is problematic but the world found a way to live with them for forty-seven years. Now Bibi has hoodwinked the gullible Trump into launching a war that will not serve the national security needs of the US.
The JCPOA, signed in 2015, strictly limited Iran's uranium enrichment to a maximum of 3.67% uranium-235 (a low-enriched level suitable for civilian nuclear power reactors and research, but far below weapons-grade levels of around 90%).
This limit was to be in place for at least 15 years, along with caps on Iran's existing stockpile of enriched uranium (reduced to 300 kg of low-enriched uranium and to be diluted to conform to the 3.67%) and restrictions on the number and type of centrifuges.
The Iranians violated these three limitations -- enrichment level, size of stockpile, and number/type of centrifuges -- immediately.
Further to those violations of the JCPOA, Iran enriched another secret stockpile of uranium to 20% -- that was not revealed to inspectors -- also not permitted under the deal's operational limits. Iran had previously enriched to 20% before the JCPOA negotiations but agreed to stop and dilute/reduce those stocks as part of the agreement.
That 20% enriched uranium and the 60% stockpile were still held by Iran when the US/Israel struck in mid-2025.
Iran counters that it didn't begin to approach those levels of enrichment until the US left the JCPOA in May 2018, but Iran revealed the level of its stockpiles shortly after the US withdrawal which meant they could not have been in compliance with the enrichment limitations if they arrived at both 60% and 20% so soon after the US withdrawal.
I like American hegemony. It has served me well. But - I did not think Israel would use it to seek regional dominance and practice Jewish supremacy. I hate to say this but now feel we need a “balance of power” in that region. China can play a constructive role.
OK, I thought that Mr. Haass was a smart guy with practical ideas. I stand corrected. His thinly veiled threat to Iran would, if implemented, dramatically expand and intensify an already out of control rolling disaster in the gulf region. Sorry to not be joining the choir in this discussion.
Rather than have US ships “disabling” (which I assume to mean with munitions) Iranian tankers bound for their friends, why not instead disable those Iranian tankers from the air as soon as they leave Karg Island? It would be less risky than putting boots on the ground to actually hold the island itself, and would make It unnecessary to send all those ships and risk all those sailors’ lives, while putting the same pressure on Iran, as far as I can see, unless I'm missing something.
It’s a reasonable proposal, but Iran’s regime is facing an existential crisis and it seems unlikely that they would fold simply because they were deprived of a little revenue. I disagree with the notion that this would provide a rapid resolution. Trump has created this problem and the world will be living with it for some time. There is no magic bullet to fix this. But this may be the least bad solution. It stands up for the general principle of freedom of navigation and places the military in the least danger. I say try it. But try it with reasonable expectations. The economy is going to be a mess for a while and it is one hundred percent Trump’s fault. Everyone with a brain knew that Iran would react exactly like this. There is a reason why no previous president did something this stupid.
It might seem to be a niggling detail, but—without some sort of international authorization—wouldn’t preventing a neutral nation’s ships and cargo from transiting innocently through the strait be both illegal and an act of war against that nation if all its ships are doing is merely passing through the strait? See, e.g., San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea,paragraph 99: “A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.”
Legalities aside, as a practical matter, I doubt the US would be willing to make the concessions or give the assurances necessary to win back the trust of erstwhile allies who would otherwise decline to participate in the scheme. And, as a practical matter, blocking innocent shipping through the strait to/from China and other neutral nations invites a confrontation that could escalate dangerously and provoke China to use the opportunity to blockade Taiwan in retaliation.
In any event, I’m unconvinced that the US holding *all* international shipping hostage, including the shipping of neutral countries, by threat of force is much different from what Iran is doing by using threat of force to prevent passage only of ships it perceives as aligned with its enemies. My intention is not to defend Iran’s lawlessness, but to point out that raising the stakes by doing *more of* what Iran is doing *some of* does not put the US on the moral high ground, or moral high water, as the case may be.
Most likely, the world will adjust as best it can to deal with the partial blockade. Over time agreements and arrangements will emerge from the muddle, and things will gradually get back to something close to the status quo ante. In the meantime and for some time to come, most countries will suffer a level of economic harm. When an international problem is intractable, the better approach is to avoid escalation and try to muddle through the muddle.
Less likely, but possible, is that Trump will continue to escalate, perhaps even escalate to using a nuke against Iran. It’s the kind of simple, powerful “solution” that appeals to Trump’s cruel and disordered character.
Isn’t your proposal like “fighting fire with fire?” Or like pouring gasoline on a fire? Might “Disabiling tankers” bound to China, India, etc provoke a counter-response? Would those countries send ships & troops to escort “their oil” — and defend against invading US forces? Is this legal?
Every war can be justifies as your justification of Russia's invasion in Ukraine. This signals a very sick mentality as every country can find a reason to invade their neighbours. In my opinion this leads to Socio-economic madness & corrupt International standards. It is not me who disagree with Russia's attack on Ukraine it is the UN with their resolutions on this matter. It only happens that I agree with UN.
In particular, Putin will conquer all of East EU because of NATO; however, people in East EU want to be part of NATO rather than Russia. I think this fact speaks for itself. People have the right to choose how they live their lives & which Unions to support. I have no justification of the autrocities that Putin has dine in Ukraine and neither should you as the Ukranian people have spoken and shown their desire to live free of Russia's oppressive regime and I sincerely hope they win the war.
As to Israel I do not agree with their decision to occupy Palestine but I agree that that all Governemnt regimes in the Middle East must be more friendly and persecute irganizations trying to sabotage Israal; thus, the only choice Israel has is to induce Regime changes with friendlier alternatives. This cannot happen overnight. If you look at the history of Israel they have been attacked many times which resulted in 8-10 major wars up to this day. The lack of Regime alternatives in all neighbouring states helped their enemies to replanish their military arsenal and attack again. Israel is a state and has the rightbto exist even in this unfriendly climate they live in and have to dela with.
Thank you for your honest opinion and for reading my comments. Viktor, Title: Magnus Nucleus for Purity if Thought.
A small note: Exact totals vary depending on the source and what is counted (e.g., appropriated vs. obligated/committed vs. disbursed/spent; direct aid to Ukraine vs. replenishing U.S. stockpiles, U.S. military operations in Europe, or regional support). Here are the most authoritative figures as of early 2026:
• Total appropriations made available by Congress for the Ukraine war response (including Operation Atlantic Resolve): $188 billion (as of December 31, 2025, per the U.S. Special Inspector General for Operation Atlantic Resolve). This includes $164 billion from five major supplemental bills (last one in April 2024) plus regular agency budgets. A separate $20 billion loan (via the World Bank, repayable from frozen Russian assets) was also provided in late 2024.  
• Direct aid supporting Ukraine (military, financial/economic, and humanitarian, as tracked for actual pledges/allocations to Ukraine): approximately $127 billion (Kiel Institute for the World Economy Ukraine Support Tracker, the standard international benchmark for direct country-to-country aid).  
• Military/security assistance provided (weapons, equipment, training, etc.): $66.9 billion since February 2022 (U.S. State Department, as of its latest 2025 update). This includes Presidential Drawdown Authority transfers from U.S. stocks (~$31.7 billion) and other programs. 
• Disbursed/spent: About 58% of the $188 billion total appropriations had been disbursed as of December 31, 2025 (with the rest obligated or in the pipeline). Earlier data (through December 2024) showed ~$83 billion disbursed. (Per Grok)
What Mr. Haass must acknowledge: what happens when a neutral country tries to ship its oil purchases out through the US “all or nothing” blockade? Do we blow it up? Board it in violation of international law and take hostage? We become the bad guys!! This is a terrible idea caused by a unnecessary war.
Why would China want to do this? I would suspect they have arrangements with Iran re: support for oil already. They are at risk of US acquiring more oil assets in the region if Iran falls. They benefit from US in a military quagmire. You are basically saying every country should side with US and Israel. I don’t think the world sees the conflict this way.
Another helpful column, although I have to question the seriousness of any idea that involves both negotiation and Donald Trump. With the U.S. president, there is genuine danger but never seriousness, or for that matter anything else resembling adulthood.
This could be done during Trump's trial in The Hague.
Well said!
Best idea I've seen yet in a sea of bad options.
agree. Here is ingenuity at work instead of initial emotional reaction.
This proposal by Richard Haass has tremendous value because it offers a peaceful process for halting a rapidly escalating war by avoiding an almost certain order by President Trump of deploying military boots on the ground in Iran. On March 14, 2026, two weeks after the beginning of America's war with Iran on February 28th, the Pentagon ordered the deployment of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, consisting of approximately 2,500 combat ground troops, to depart from Japan aboard the USS Tripoli (LHA-7) bound for Iran. Estimates on ocean transit time for the USS Tripoli are between 10 - 14 days, meaning that the Marines will arrive in the waters off Iran sometime this month between March 24 and March 28, 2026. The USS Tripoli is essentially a helicopter attack carrier. Indeed, it's designation as LHA-7 stands for "Landing Helicopter Attack." As a Marine combat veteran from the Vietnam war, I know from personal experience what the mission is for the USS Tripoli (LHA-7), because I was similarly deployed by helicopter into ground combat in South Vietnam on several missions launched off the USS Tripoli (LPH-10) in 1968. The LPH-10 was the predecessor of the modern LHA-7. As in Vietnam, The USS Tripoli is a sea-based fast reaction helicopter attack carrier designed to deploy large numbers of Marines quickly into direct combat on the ground wherever they are critically needed in the most rapid manner possible. Along with a majority of Americans, I am absolutely opposed to putting “boots on the ground” in Iran in what could become another endless war in the Middle East. Yet, there is no reason why President Trump would be sending a unit of Marines to Iran aboard a helicopter attack carrier other than for the purpose of dropping them into combat on the ground. I hope Haass' proposal receives widespread consideration, and quickly, before the Marines arrive in the waters off Iran. For them to die in this unnecessary war would be immoral.
With a conventional, normal administration in control, I would wholeheartedly support Haas' creative Hormuz plan, but we are dealing with an administration loaded with dunces leading the charge who strut, swagger, exaggerate and lie and most likely would fumble "bigly" getting this operation off the ground. They are really good at damaging, degrading or destroying vessels,nuclear and ballistic missile sites, infrastructure, killing etc. but organizing the intricacies of this plan, as sensible as it is, seems doubtful. I have faith in the military if freed from their handlers, but I fear the bureaucrats lack the sophistication to successfully pull off a maneuver of this scope.
There is "on the ground" and there is raiding. Not the same thing.
This would be a bloody piece of cake for a well trained Marine or Ranger unit.
Every military installation on Kharq Island has been destroyed, there is and will be unparalled close air support and air supremacy, the Iranians cannot hope to reinforce, and you can bet the Marines/Rangers will be there long before the time table you lay out.
The Iranians would wake up with the US holding the oil terminal and storage that accountas for 96% of Iranian transport of crude oil and the the lionshare of their revenue.
This WILL happen.
Rangers Lead the Way
Your take is extremely optimistic. A long time ago, I was in a Ranger battalion and I see some big problems you gloss over.
Seizing the terminal would in fact be fairly straight forward. Holding it would be less so. The Russians have provided Iran with fiber optic FPV drones that have ranges up to and exceeding twenty miles. These are quite resistent to jamming by electronic warfare. And the US, contrary to what President Trump says, does not have a good counter to these.
The island is close to the Iranian mainland, is totally flat, and has basically nothing in the way of cover and concealment. These FPV drones don’t need radio communication so they can be launched from bunkers. The US would need to provide food and water to whomever occupies the terminal and that resupply would be vulnerable to drones as would the occupiers.
And the more obvious point is what value does the US achieve by occupying the Island? Could they choke off the minimal amount of energy that Iran is getting out? Probably. But so what?
Iran’s regime is facing an existential threat. Do you think depriving them of a little revenue will make them suddenly fold? I don’t. If I were in their shoes it would affect me not at all.
So we put our soldiers or marines at risk for pretty much no real benefit. It seems to me that Iran is in a pretty good position. Maybe not long term, but for now. Cutting off traffic for Iran does not make the spiking energy prices any better. And Iran can bring in the stuff they need over land from Central Asia.
While seizing the island might make Trump and people like you feel slightly less impotent, will it really provide the quick fix that you are craving? In my judgment, probably not. This thing is going to drag on for a long time and probably end in some kind of negotiated settlement that gives the Iranian regime some kind of security guarantees going forward. They care less about deprivation and a bad economy than the leaders of democracies do. Democratic leaders answer to voters.
And negotiations become problematic because they keep killing off many of the actors who could negotiate on behalf of the regime. And will the Iranians trust Trump or Israel? I wouldn’t if I were them. Trump has already torn up numerous deals with Iran. And Bibi wears the pants in the US-Israel relationship. He will do what he wants no matter what Trump might agree to with the Iranians. So that diminishes the Iranians enthusiasm for negotiation.
You are proposing a simple, feel-good solution for a problem that is not so simple. I expect high energy prices to drag on for a very long time. Even if there was a resolution today, the high prices would linger for several months. And the long-term uncertainty could make that longer.
Who knows what happens? I don’t. But my best guess is a sustained economic dislocation. Everyone with a brain knew Iran would do exactly what they have done. That included the generals in the Pentagon. But only one guy’s opinion mattered here and it turned out to be the opinion of the least thoughtful, most poorly informed, most impulsive person. And we will have to live with the consequences for a while.
Without minimizing the significance of FPV drones -- an antiquated but effective technology that goes back to the Vietnam War Era TOW missile guidance systems -- it is not the great threat you indicate.
Kharq Island is 25 kilometers off shore and an FPV has to fly over a body of water which makes detection infinitely easier and then operate at its farthest range. Only a small subset of Russian FPVs operate at that distance and I question whether the Russians have or have not shared that weapon given their own demands in Ukraine.
Like a tracer round, the use of FPVs reveals the point from which it was launched and it will have to be in extremely close proximity to the watersedge in Iran, within a few kilometers.
Given total air supremacy the US will have a field day with the Iranian troops assigned to launch those weapons. Worth noting this is a weapon with which they have zero familiarity and it requires monitoring whilst in flight.
So, fair play to noting its possibilities, highly unlikely it becomes a factor and very likely it invites harsh retribution.
There is no current data indicating that the Iranians directly possess FPV tech though there is data showing employment by Hezbollah in Lebanon.
As to the benefit of American control of Kharq Island, the answer is at the end of one's nose -- a significanct loss of control by the Ayatollah regime of both their economy and sovereignty at low cost. This is not insignificant and puts Iran's ability to pay its bills in jeopardy immediately plus denies the IRGC and other bad actors sources of refined product.
Energy accounts for 80% of Iranian exports and 100% of its Ayatollah class graft and corruption.
Iran already has difficulty collecting taxes, its largest source of government income and now oil -- formerly its largest source and now its second largest.
In the dismantling of this evil regime, this can only be taken as a hard stroke likely to further undermine the survivability of the regime.
There is no scenario in which this regime reconstitutes itself, is allowed to continue to rule Iran, can obtain the support of the people by any means, and survives, It's over.
The tide will turn when the Iranian military -- not the Quds, the IRGC, the Basij -- turn against the regime. They have guns. The people do not. Yet.
The US will solve the issue of the Strait of Hormuz and the implications of the energy marketplace will slowly dissolve thereafter. Much of the pricing in the marketplace is simply war hysteria and speculation. This looks wildly different in two weeks.
Bottom line -- the US/Israel continues to pound the ever living snot out of Iran, continues to decapitate leadership, continues to destroy with impunity any and all infrastructure involved with missiles, drones, the IRGC, the Ayatollahs, and the administration of any form of civilian repression. I like the US position.
I envy your service with the Ranger Regiment. In my day, all the Regulars had to go to Airborne/Ranger schools but there was no RR. I went to VMI and served in the combat engineers.
I live in Poland. I formerly lived twice in Russia, totalling a bit over four years. I follow events in Ukraine closely. Three years into that war I called it that Russia would lose. I lived in Russia during the 2008 Georgia War and the Russian army and especially the Aerospace Forces performed very poorly. When I saw in early 2022 that nothing had improved in the fourteen years between 2008 and 2022, I knew that Russia was screwed.
When I listen to a lot of Americans saying US victory is inevitable, I hear the likes of Putin spokesman Dimitri Peskov, or propagandists like Solovyov, or Kiselyov telling me that Kyiv would fall in a week. Wishful thinking does not determine the outcome.
Interesting background. Love to hear more over a coffee.
When the Russians invaded Ukraine, I immediately called a Brother Rat who had been the senior adviser to the International Division in southern Iraq during the Iraq War and asked his opinion as to the fighting characteristics of the Ukrainians. I believe they supplied a brigade.
He was very high on their fighting capabilities and said they would not be a pushover and that since 2014, the Ukrainians had been preparing for the next shoe to drop.
This was Day Two of the war.
Fast forward, the Ukrainians have discharged themselves in an extraordinary manner and the Russians turn out to be an ineffective medieval army w some modestly good gear.
The Ukrainians, during the Soviet Era, were the foremost weapons designers and manufacturers in the USSR. They have re-emerged and have begun to manufacture and deploy home designed gear -- the Flamingo cruise missile being a great example -- that is easy to build, utilizes readily available subassemblies, and surpasses many of the operating characteristics of the best American gear -- range and warhead.
Previous comment should have said three weeks into the Ukraine War not three years.
And what I am watching in Ukraine with weapons is far more significant than you seem to appreciate. Precision low yield weapons that are cheap are a game changer. And the next move is going to be drone swarms. One fiber optic drone controlling dozens (minimum) of other drones is formiddable. And the US has no real solution to that.
I agree completely that FPV drones in a tactical infantry scheme are a game changer. Every war creates a new tactical initiative.
I don't think they are significant when the US is strategically bombing the shit out of Iran, decapitating its leadership, destroying missile factories/stockpiles, destroying drone factories/stockpiles, destroying every IRGC HQ building/motorpool/barracks/warehouse, and destroying every Basij and police building in the entire country.
The US is not going to make a deal with dead or alive Ayatollahs and will bomb them until they are all gone.
The Ayatollahs/IRGC are losing communications and control over subordinate units that are also being destroyed. The Ayatollahs are going to simply disappear, literally,.
At some time, all resistance will succumb to the sheer magnitude of the bombing. The US doesn't have to hurry that.
As to the impact on energy markets -- the US doesn't get a drop of Iranian oil. Venezuela -- Chevron in particular -- is already doubling production and export.
My first job after grad school and the Army was in the C-suite woring for the President as an ADC. I disagree completely that anything currently going on in Iran as it relates to energy will have an impact longer than 90 days. That could change, but right now the US has been careful in its target selection.
The pundits said it would take more than 5 years to increase Veneuelan production and export, but it has already begun and contrary to the XOM CEO, Americans are in the country right now working on production revitalization.
Iran is almost three times the size of Texas with lots of mountains and deserts. You can put about 2500 drones in a 40 foot container. A container on a chassis that can be easily moved is pretty dang hard to take out.
Not sure why you have such endless optimism. Iran has a fair amount of experience at hiding things. It is quite possible for an army to win every battle and still lose the war. Think us and the Soviets in Afghanistan. Or us in Vietnam. All the mullahs have to do to win is survive.
Ukraine has been building drones all over the country, and the Russians, who have advanced satellite capabilities, have mostly not found the workshops.
Your context is us fighting a near peer enemy. That is not the war Iran has chosen to fight.
I was there before there was a Regiment. I mean technically we were part of 75th Infantry Regiment but there was no regimental commander or headquarters. The Battalion commanders of the two independent battalions reported directly to higher headquarters. The BC when I first got there was a VMI guy, but he was killed in an aviation accident along with the Battallion Surgeon and five other Rangers. I thought he was a good commander. The next guy was the father of Nancy Mace. A Citidel man. He wasn't a terrible guy but far less impressive than his predecessor.
I don't share your confidence at all. On paper it looks like a straight forward case, but we don't fight on paper.
The factor you seem to completely ignore is time. Time is not on our side. A dictatorship can always hold out for longer than a democracy. We are also on the way to dictatorship but are not there yet. Iranians are used to deprivation. Americans and Europeans aren't. High energy prices will affect us a lot more than low revenues will affect them. There are two wars going on here. Us bombing them with expensive weapons and them hunkering down and responding with cheap weapons. They can hold out for a long time. We can't really afford to. We have already had to pull air defense out of South Korea. Not a good idea. And we are running low on Patriot and other air defense ordanance. We have fired more Patriot munitions in two weeks than Ukraine has in the several years that they have had them. And Iran still has capable proxies who are more than capable of hitting targets directly or indirectly linked to us.
And a lot of the Gulf states are pretty unhappy. We've burned up all our alliances in Europe and the Asia-Pacific.
Not sure how much you know about the oil field. Even if the Strait only remains closed for three months, the downstream effects will last at least three years. Turning off the oil tap is not like turning off the water tap. Once oil starts pumping, stopping it has detrimental affects to short and medium term production. And a lot of these countries don't have a lot of storage to fill up. So they are going to have to turn things off and that has consequences.
This is going to be a significant economic disruption and not a short term one. And we went from having an 86 year old Ayatollah who was not extreme by Iranian standards and had a couple of bouts of cancer, to now having a much younger guy whose whole family we obliterated. Does that sound like a guy who will be eager to compromise? Not to me.
I don't see this ending quickly. Trump has permanently damaged US credibility and alliances.
The more basic question is this -- does anyone see a future Iran with the Ayatollahs -- these murderous evil assholes -- in charge of a post war Iran?
Does anyone see a future in which 8% of Iran extremists control, suppress, and murder the vast majority of Iranians?
Does anyone with modest intelligence see any prospect of negotiating a deal with these vermin?
Does anyone not see the benefit of China having to find other sources of oil?
Guys like Richard Haas never want to face that basic question which is why they have attempted to negotiate deals that will never work, have never worked, and are simply unrealistic.
Richard is a good guy; he's not a hard man, not a realistic man, not someone who has to make hard decisions. He's a Foggy Bottom prevaricator.
Iran cannot exist with Ayatollahs in charge. The Middle East cannot revert to peace with the Ayatollahs in charge -- ask the other Middle Eastern countries, ask Saudi Arabia -- and the world cannot allow its largest funder of raw terror to survice.
Now is not a dangerous moment; it is a providential moment if the US has the balls to finish the job.
Does anybody with a brain not think the predictably roiling oil markets will not settle down when the last Ayatollah is killed?
Finish. The. Job.
God bless us all and those we send in harm's way to fix the silly decisions of our previous leaders.
I regret to inform you that military force is not a magic wand, and that a clumsy effort to use force to clean up one mess often creates several bigger messes. To truly “finish the job” would require boots on the ground for another experiment in nation-building for which one doubts the US has the patience and will. “Finish the job” is a slogan, not a plan.
The Iranians lived up to their non-proliferation agreement with the world. The “vermin” who did not, currently lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The Iranian regime is problematic but the world found a way to live with them for forty-seven years. Now Bibi has hoodwinked the gullible Trump into launching a war that will not serve the national security needs of the US.
Not really, Wm.
The JCPOA, signed in 2015, strictly limited Iran's uranium enrichment to a maximum of 3.67% uranium-235 (a low-enriched level suitable for civilian nuclear power reactors and research, but far below weapons-grade levels of around 90%).
This limit was to be in place for at least 15 years, along with caps on Iran's existing stockpile of enriched uranium (reduced to 300 kg of low-enriched uranium and to be diluted to conform to the 3.67%) and restrictions on the number and type of centrifuges.
The Iranians violated these three limitations -- enrichment level, size of stockpile, and number/type of centrifuges -- immediately.
Further to those violations of the JCPOA, Iran enriched another secret stockpile of uranium to 20% -- that was not revealed to inspectors -- also not permitted under the deal's operational limits. Iran had previously enriched to 20% before the JCPOA negotiations but agreed to stop and dilute/reduce those stocks as part of the agreement.
That 20% enriched uranium and the 60% stockpile were still held by Iran when the US/Israel struck in mid-2025.
Iran counters that it didn't begin to approach those levels of enrichment until the US left the JCPOA in May 2018, but Iran revealed the level of its stockpiles shortly after the US withdrawal which meant they could not have been in compliance with the enrichment limitations if they arrived at both 60% and 20% so soon after the US withdrawal.
Thank you!
Im so sick and tired of always hearing how good and saintly the usa is!
Biggest chaos agents since 1945
I like American hegemony. It has served me well. But - I did not think Israel would use it to seek regional dominance and practice Jewish supremacy. I hate to say this but now feel we need a “balance of power” in that region. China can play a constructive role.
One example, please, wherein China has played a "constructive role" -- well, not North Korea or Taiwan. Where?
Good analysis and best option I've heard so far. 👍
"It could well complicate U.S. relations with China, but this is something that could be managed through diplomacy."
Ah yes...this administration's specialty...
More Red Weddings...🙄
OK, I thought that Mr. Haass was a smart guy with practical ideas. I stand corrected. His thinly veiled threat to Iran would, if implemented, dramatically expand and intensify an already out of control rolling disaster in the gulf region. Sorry to not be joining the choir in this discussion.
Rather than have US ships “disabling” (which I assume to mean with munitions) Iranian tankers bound for their friends, why not instead disable those Iranian tankers from the air as soon as they leave Karg Island? It would be less risky than putting boots on the ground to actually hold the island itself, and would make It unnecessary to send all those ships and risk all those sailors’ lives, while putting the same pressure on Iran, as far as I can see, unless I'm missing something.
.
It’s a reasonable proposal, but Iran’s regime is facing an existential crisis and it seems unlikely that they would fold simply because they were deprived of a little revenue. I disagree with the notion that this would provide a rapid resolution. Trump has created this problem and the world will be living with it for some time. There is no magic bullet to fix this. But this may be the least bad solution. It stands up for the general principle of freedom of navigation and places the military in the least danger. I say try it. But try it with reasonable expectations. The economy is going to be a mess for a while and it is one hundred percent Trump’s fault. Everyone with a brain knew that Iran would react exactly like this. There is a reason why no previous president did something this stupid.
It might seem to be a niggling detail, but—without some sort of international authorization—wouldn’t preventing a neutral nation’s ships and cargo from transiting innocently through the strait be both illegal and an act of war against that nation if all its ships are doing is merely passing through the strait? See, e.g., San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea,paragraph 99: “A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.”
I’m no expert about international law relating to blockades in time of war nor about whether blocking neutral nations’ ships that are not carrying cargo to or from Iran could be considered part of a proper legal blockade of Iran under international law of the sea. See https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/san-remo-manual-1994 and https://www.justsecurity.org/133996/legal-operational-strait-hormuz-transit-passage/ and https://theconversation.com/how-the-law-of-naval-warfare-applies-to-the-strait-of-hormuz-278653
Legalities aside, as a practical matter, I doubt the US would be willing to make the concessions or give the assurances necessary to win back the trust of erstwhile allies who would otherwise decline to participate in the scheme. And, as a practical matter, blocking innocent shipping through the strait to/from China and other neutral nations invites a confrontation that could escalate dangerously and provoke China to use the opportunity to blockade Taiwan in retaliation.
In any event, I’m unconvinced that the US holding *all* international shipping hostage, including the shipping of neutral countries, by threat of force is much different from what Iran is doing by using threat of force to prevent passage only of ships it perceives as aligned with its enemies. My intention is not to defend Iran’s lawlessness, but to point out that raising the stakes by doing *more of* what Iran is doing *some of* does not put the US on the moral high ground, or moral high water, as the case may be.
Most likely, the world will adjust as best it can to deal with the partial blockade. Over time agreements and arrangements will emerge from the muddle, and things will gradually get back to something close to the status quo ante. In the meantime and for some time to come, most countries will suffer a level of economic harm. When an international problem is intractable, the better approach is to avoid escalation and try to muddle through the muddle.
Less likely, but possible, is that Trump will continue to escalate, perhaps even escalate to using a nuke against Iran. It’s the kind of simple, powerful “solution” that appeals to Trump’s cruel and disordered character.
Isn’t your proposal like “fighting fire with fire?” Or like pouring gasoline on a fire? Might “Disabiling tankers” bound to China, India, etc provoke a counter-response? Would those countries send ships & troops to escort “their oil” — and defend against invading US forces? Is this legal?
Can you spell “q u a g m i r e” ?
Every war can be justifies as your justification of Russia's invasion in Ukraine. This signals a very sick mentality as every country can find a reason to invade their neighbours. In my opinion this leads to Socio-economic madness & corrupt International standards. It is not me who disagree with Russia's attack on Ukraine it is the UN with their resolutions on this matter. It only happens that I agree with UN.
In particular, Putin will conquer all of East EU because of NATO; however, people in East EU want to be part of NATO rather than Russia. I think this fact speaks for itself. People have the right to choose how they live their lives & which Unions to support. I have no justification of the autrocities that Putin has dine in Ukraine and neither should you as the Ukranian people have spoken and shown their desire to live free of Russia's oppressive regime and I sincerely hope they win the war.
As to Israel I do not agree with their decision to occupy Palestine but I agree that that all Governemnt regimes in the Middle East must be more friendly and persecute irganizations trying to sabotage Israal; thus, the only choice Israel has is to induce Regime changes with friendlier alternatives. This cannot happen overnight. If you look at the history of Israel they have been attacked many times which resulted in 8-10 major wars up to this day. The lack of Regime alternatives in all neighbouring states helped their enemies to replanish their military arsenal and attack again. Israel is a state and has the rightbto exist even in this unfriendly climate they live in and have to dela with.
Thank you for your honest opinion and for reading my comments. Viktor, Title: Magnus Nucleus for Purity if Thought.
A small note: Exact totals vary depending on the source and what is counted (e.g., appropriated vs. obligated/committed vs. disbursed/spent; direct aid to Ukraine vs. replenishing U.S. stockpiles, U.S. military operations in Europe, or regional support). Here are the most authoritative figures as of early 2026:
• Total appropriations made available by Congress for the Ukraine war response (including Operation Atlantic Resolve): $188 billion (as of December 31, 2025, per the U.S. Special Inspector General for Operation Atlantic Resolve). This includes $164 billion from five major supplemental bills (last one in April 2024) plus regular agency budgets. A separate $20 billion loan (via the World Bank, repayable from frozen Russian assets) was also provided in late 2024.  
• Direct aid supporting Ukraine (military, financial/economic, and humanitarian, as tracked for actual pledges/allocations to Ukraine): approximately $127 billion (Kiel Institute for the World Economy Ukraine Support Tracker, the standard international benchmark for direct country-to-country aid).  
• Military/security assistance provided (weapons, equipment, training, etc.): $66.9 billion since February 2022 (U.S. State Department, as of its latest 2025 update). This includes Presidential Drawdown Authority transfers from U.S. stocks (~$31.7 billion) and other programs. 
• Disbursed/spent: About 58% of the $188 billion total appropriations had been disbursed as of December 31, 2025 (with the rest obligated or in the pipeline). Earlier data (through December 2024) showed ~$83 billion disbursed. (Per Grok)
What Mr. Haass must acknowledge: what happens when a neutral country tries to ship its oil purchases out through the US “all or nothing” blockade? Do we blow it up? Board it in violation of international law and take hostage? We become the bad guys!! This is a terrible idea caused by a unnecessary war.
Why would China want to do this? I would suspect they have arrangements with Iran re: support for oil already. They are at risk of US acquiring more oil assets in the region if Iran falls. They benefit from US in a military quagmire. You are basically saying every country should side with US and Israel. I don’t think the world sees the conflict this way.