Trump’s refusal this week to rule out seizing Iranian islands has revived
speculation about US intentions. Andreas Krieg, associate professor of security
studies at King’s College London, said a temporary seizure is materially
different from long‑term control and sustainment; Qeshm is particularly
problematic because of its size and proximity to the Iranian mainland. Smaller
islands such as Hengam would be easier to take but remain within range of
Iranian artillery, missiles, drones and fast‑boat swarms. Simultaneous
operations across multiple islands would amount to a large‑scale amphibious
campaign rather than a limited raid. Even if US forces secured islands, Iran
could still disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz; garrisons would be
exposed to sustained attack and would allow Tehran to frame the move as an
occupation. Krieg estimates a limited initial seizure would require about
5,000-10,000 troops including air defence, engineers, logistics, medical and
command elements, with requirements rising sharply for multi‑island or long‑term
occupation; Iran could instead opt to attrit garrisons over time. Nader Hashemi,
professor of Middle East politics at Georgetown University, said he doubts
Washington would attempt seizures—especially Kharg—citing likely heavy US
casualties and a domestic political backlash among Trump’s MAGA supporters that
could draw comparisons to the Iraq war.
