3 dramatic scenarios to watch for in Iran

Trump says, "we're gonna go further" in the war. Here's what he might be talking about.

Less than two weeks into the war President Trump launched against Iran on February 28, it already seems long. The war has sent oil prices up and generated fears of an energy crisis, with oil tankers blocked from transiting the crucial Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. Trump did almost nothing to prepare Americans for the cost of war, and soaring oil and gasoline prices are rapidly turning Americans against Trump’s Middle East adventure.

Trump is not a crafty strategist who plays the long game, and many critics wonder just how badly he underestimated the consequences of a war with one of the world’s most hostile regimes. So now there’s speculation about some kind of dramatic move that might hasten the end of the war—or make it even worse, if things go wrong.

In a March 9 press conference, Trump himself said, “we could call it a tremendous success right now. Or we could go further. And we’re gonna go further.”

What does he mean? Here are three possible developments to watch for:

Commando raids to secure Iran’s nuclear material. One of several war aims Trump has cited is the need to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But the theocratic regime Trump wants to depose remains firmly in charge, and insistent that it won’t give up its nukes. Trump himself has suggested he could send “boots on the ground” to locate nearly 1,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium that could readily be converted into bomb-grade material.

This would be a tall order even by the legendary standards of America’s special operators. Iran’s enriched uranium is likely stored underground in mountainous terrain near Isfahan, in central Iran, in around 20 canisters shaped like scuba-diving tanks. It could be entombed by rubble created during last year’s US-Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear weapons sites. This is nothing like a simple snatch-and-grab mission. US forces could probably fly there easily enough, given that Iran’s air-defense network is shattered, allowing US and Israeli aircraft to fly over the country unmolested. But getting in and out would be easy compared with a ground mission that might be prohibitively complex and dangerous.

[The Iran war could be a big win, even if you hate Trump]

US forces would have to dig their way to the nuclear material, and they’re not even sure where it is. Are they going to fly in bulldozers and excavators? Plus trained drivers? And dig for weeks, if necessary? This seems almost impossible. It would require a sizeable invasion force to protect the people looking for the uranium for an indefinite amount of time, at a fixed location the Iranians know better than anybody else.

You can dream up Hollywood-type scenarios in which Army Rangers form a sort of cordon around the nuke-hunters while circling airships blast away at the encroaching Iranian army. Then imagine some American planes getting shot down by portable missiles and ask how you’d get everybody out if thousands of armed Iranians are pressing in from all sides. There aren’t enough Rambos and Mavericks in the whole US military to pull this off.

It’s another tell that Trump has telegraphed this, which would be an abject breach of security if the Pentagon were really serious about such an operation. The whole thing sounds like a feint.

Target: Kharg Island. A more intriguing possibility is the seizure of Kharg Island, which is Iran’s most important energy stronghold. It’s an 8-square mile outcropping in the Persian Gulf, about 16 miles from the Iranian coast, that serves as Iran’s main export terminal. About 90% of Iran’s oil exports go through the terminal, which can handle large oil tankers at deep-water ports. Exported oil is Iran’s main source of revenue. That’s the money that finances the Islamic regime and the Revolutionary Guard Corps that keeps them in power.

Iran knows that Kharg is a huge vulnerability because Iraq attacked it repeatedly during the war between those two countries in the 1980s. Those attacks caused damage but never shut down Iran’s exports. But Iraq didn’t try to seize the island outright, which is something the US military might be able to do.

[How Trump gets out of the Iran war]

Trump’s method for gaining control of Venezuela in January was taking over its oil industry, using US military assets to interdict tankers and essentially blockade the country. Getting control of Venezuela’s oil gave Trump leverage against the leaders who remained after US forces grabbed President Nicolás Maduro on January 3. Since oil revenue fills the bank accounts of those who remain, they have to do Trump’s bidding if they want to stay on the payroll.

If US forces got control of Kharg Island, that would give Trump massive leverage over the mullahs who still rule Iran. Among other things, it would be a way for Trump to demand that Iran allow oil tankers safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, else they can kiss their own oil revenue goodbye. That would go a long way toward ending the unfolding energy crisis that has pushed oil prices from $60 per barrel to more than $90.

Since Kharg is crucial to Iran, it would defend the island aggressively, including the use of fast-attack boats setting off from the coast aiming to swarm and sink US Navy ships. So US casualties might be likely. Still, taking Kharg seems far more plausible than plopping commandos down in the middle of Iran for an extended period to hunt for uranium.

There’s also chatter about US forces bombing Kharg to shut down Iran’s oil exports. The problem with that is that it would remove an important source of oil from global markets and push up prices indefinitely, something Trump is clearly reluctant to do. Either way, there have to be intense discussions at Central Command about which approach, if any, might produce the best results.

Can Iran’s leaders stay alive? The new Iranian “supreme leader” is Mojtaba Khamenei, who is the son of Ali Khamenei, the 87-year ayatollah who led Iran from 1989 until he died in one of the first bombing attacks of the war on February 28. The younger Khamenei, who’s 56, is at least as much of a hard-liner as his father, which means he fails Trump’s test of a leader who will ease up on protesters, give up the nuclear program and agree to other Trump demands.

Trump said recently that “I’m not going through this to end up with another Khamenei,” and has reportedly said he would support an effort to assassinate the son. Israel supposedly has the war’s assassination beat, given that its Mossad spy agents have thoroughly penetrated Iran and murdered a number of leaders and nuclear scientists over the years. And with US and Israeli forces destroying bunkers throughout Iran, its leaders have ever fewer places to hide from enemy attacks.

There’s no shortage of social media snark about Mojtaba’s life expectancy and the willingness of other possible leaders to step right up into the Israeli crosshairs. Yet many experts still consider it illegal for the United States to participate in the assassination of foreign leaders, even in wartime. Among other things, it could normalize the practice when nations have conflicts and undermine US objections about political violence carried out by other countries.

But the Iran war was always going to be unpredictable, and Iran may cycle through a number of leaders before its future becomes clear. With or without its oil money.