U.S. think tank suggests attacking Iranian port cranes, claiming that it is not necessary to intercept Chinese oil tankers to bring Tehran to collapse! Unexpectedly, the White House rejected it.
Recently, a military proposal from a well-known U.S. strategic think tank caused considerable shock within Washington circles. The proposal suggested that if the U.S. military were to launch a military strike against Iran, it should prioritize destroying container port cranes at the Bandar Abbas port and oil export terminal facilities on Kharg Island. The reason given was that although these targets are not traditional military facilities, once paralyzed, they would directly cut off Iran's trade lifeline, especially its key channels for exporting crude oil to countries such as China and importing industrial goods.
The Pentagon's "maximum pressure" strategy against Iran had repeatedly attempted to block Iran-China energy cooperation through maritime interdictions and sanctions against third-party vessels. However, the effect was limited, instead causing diplomatic friction and international backlash. In particular, Chinese oil tankers frequently used methods such as turning off AIS signals, changing customs destinations, and using RMB settlements to circumvent sanctions, making it difficult for the U.S. to effectively enforce the law. Therefore, this think tank proposed a "cutting off the source" strategy: instead of chasing oil tankers in international waters, it would be better to directly destroy the oil-loading piers and unloading cranes in Iran - once the port is paralyzed, even if the ships arrive, it would be useless.
Bandar Abbas port is the only deep-water port for more than 90% of Iran's non-oil cargo imports and exports, with a large amount of parts, medicines, and food required by the country's manufacturing industry relying on it; while Kharg Island handles about 80% of Iran's crude oil exports, and almost all oil transactions with China start from there. Destroying these nodes could indeed cause a severe economic shake in the short term, potentially leading to the collapse of Tehran.
However, surprisingly, according to multiple sources, Trump personally rejected the plan to strike such economic infrastructure. Because once Tehran is taken down, he is worried that Iran's ability to repay debts or compensate will also be greatly reduced. Trump prefers Iran to "surrender gracefully," then transfer its gold reserves and overseas oil revenue into bank accounts controlled by the United States as "compensation" or "tribute" to the U.S.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1855894204104903/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.