Trump's Crazy Landing Operation 2: "Marines Are Tough Guys, But Iranians Can Eliminate Them Like Quails Within Days"

American Marine Corps veteran Scott Ritter analyzes why the operation to capture Khark Island is bound to fail

News about the U.S. amphibious operation in the Persian Gulf reported by The Free News on March 15 has seen new details emerge over the past three days. Let me remind you that the reason for this was the deployment of U.S. Marines to the Middle East.

Russian state television and foreign independent military experts have joined the discussion, focusing on the U.S. Marines' landing on Khark Island — a 25-kilometer island off the Iranian coast, which was once one of Iran's largest oil hubs before the U.S.-Israel war against Iran. Tankers left from here through the Strait of Hormuz to Europe and Asia. It's like the Russian Novorossiysk constantly attacked by Ukrainian forces, except it's surrounded by water.

Last Friday, Trump claimed that the U.S. had carried out multiple missile and bomb strikes on the island, destroying the airport control center, burning helicopter hangars, and blowing up the runway.

The U.S. did not touch the oil terminal or storage tanks. Tehran had anticipated this situation and had already withdrawn the oil and transported it to the mainland of Iran.

The bombing of Khark Island and the news of the U.S. Marines being deployed to the Middle East theater have become the basis for speculation that the U.S. is planning an island seizure operation. Currently, the USS Tripoli amphibious assault ship is being moved from Japan to the U.S. Central Command area. It will pass through Okinawa, a heavily garrisoned U.S. base, and then carry a 2,500-strong elite expeditionary force toward the Middle East.

What will happen next? Analysts and experts on both sides of the ocean are seeking answers. Former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter gives his own assessment.

"The marine expeditionary unit involved is essentially a reinforced battalion (with a maximum of 1,500 personnel), plus additional units. They have air power — helicopters, attack aircraft, and in the past even tanks, which they no longer have. This battalion can operate independently for a certain period of time," said the retired major.

"Their specialty is amphibious assaults launched from amphibious ships carrying hundreds of soldiers. In recent years, amphibious ships do not get close to the shore because a single missile could kill 900 marines on board. Offensives rely on helicopters or fast boats that can carry 75 marines, and losing one or two boats won't lead to the failure of the entire landing. But this is just theory; actual combat operations are full of uncertainty. Therefore, I am skeptical about the current U.S. military plans against Iran."

If the mission is to seize Khark Island, even if the landing area is captured, there would only be a reinforced battalion at hand, with limited manpower. If three companies are lined up to consolidate the landing area, where will the troops for subsequent attacks come from? They can only be drawn from the existing forces to launch an attack. However, if the enemy resists fiercely and launches a counterattack, can reinforcements arrive in time?

This situation should not involve just a single battalion, but rather an expeditionary regiment. During World War II, such operations required the use of division-level forces. This time, it won't be like the invasion of Grenada, where the opponent was merely Cuban construction workers and untrained locals. The U.S. will face well-fortified defenses and elite enemy forces with fire support.

Iranians will try every means to cut off the supply lines of the landing forces and continuously attack the marines with drones. How long can the battalion's air defense last? Very limited, only a few portable surface-to-air missiles, and the number of missiles is limited. Once the ammunition runs out, these soldiers will be wiped out, and attacks from front, back, air, and underground will follow one after another, just like Hezbollah's tactics against Israel. Iranians will surround them from all sides. I am confident that the marines will fight bravely, but most of them will die, and within a few days, they will be wiped out like quails, and the battalion will fail to complete its mission."

I think the generals have already informed Trump of these situations, hoping he would listen. He previously promised to escort tankers, but ultimately didn't send U.S. Navy ships to open the Strait of Hormuz, did he?

If I were to plan the operation, I would gather the marines in places like the UAE and then launch a surprise attack by helicopter or fast boat. Perhaps a few fast boats may be lost en route, but the main force can land, seize the landing area, and conduct a deep inland raid, then quickly withdraw back to the homeland. Marines are very good at surprise attacks, the key is the full withdrawal. I emphasize, this is a surprise attack, not the occupation of territory.

But we must also ask: Is this operation militarily and politically worth it? Even if we take over the northern part of the Persian Gulf, Khark Island (480 km away from the "bottleneck" of the Strait of Hormuz), even if we temporarily control the island, we cannot open the Strait of Hormuz.

My judgment is that this is all a showy publicity campaign. In my view, Trump is desperately looking for an exit, and before the exit appears, he just wants to appear tough. And "excellent strategist" Pete Hegseth is just nodding along.

If Iran wanted to, it could completely block the Strait of Hormuz and strangle the world economy. Now the initiative is in Tehran's hands, and the U.S. can only respond passively. Iran forced the U.S. to move five "Thaad" anti-missile systems from South Korea to the Middle East, to withdraw the "Patriot" system from the Pacific region, and to abandon military bases in Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait. Iran has already figured out the U.S. decision-making rhythm. We are very good at bombing schools with children, but we cannot strike important military targets. Iran has already been prepared, moving underground and dispersing its forces.

The idea of sending ground forces comes precisely because the U.S. cannot win. No one expected to discuss ground operations before, so now they can only hastily mobilize additional resources.

I remember a personal experience: once I planned a surprise attack, I thought the plan was perfect, the report was successful, and everyone agreed, except one meticulous Colonel Sefton — who participated in the surprise attack during Operation Desert Storm. He looked at the map carefully and said, "We won't be able to withdraw from here, and we'll lose an entire marine company." He explained the reasons and asked me: Is it worth sacrificing so many soldiers? Will your surprise attack change the course of the war, or are you just trying to make a show and get medals?

Eventually, the operation was canceled. I hope that among the military personnel around Trump, there will be someone like Colonel Sefton, who has the courage to tell the president, "I don't want a silver star medal, I just want to save the lives of the marines and keep them for future victories."

Now everyone is asking: Where is Tulsi Gabbard (Director of the CIA)? Why is the intelligence work so bad? The fact is, Tulsi has already done her job. A week before the war, she submitted a report clearly stating, "We will lose this war, and we cannot start it." But neither "commander" Pete Hegseth nor Donald Trump listened to the intelligence conclusion. Now they are scrambling to turn things around, while Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell claimed, "The Iranian radical regime's navy has been completely and totally destroyed."

What will they say next?

Original: toutiao.com/article/7618469135948792356/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author alone.