Iran’s Khark Island has emerged as a central focal point in the evolving military dynamics of the war, following reports that Washington informed Israel and other allies that seizing the island could require a ground operation. This signals a significant escalation in the trajectory of the conflict.
Military expert Sayed Ghoneim, a fellow at the Military Academy for Advanced and Strategic Studies, stated that any move toward Khark Island represents one of the final stages of escalation. He explained that controlling the island would necessitate both ground and amphibious forces, marking a shift beyond air and naval engagements into direct territorial operations.
Ghoneim outlined that such an operation would first require full control of the operational theatre. This would involve intensive air and naval strikes to eliminate Iranian military presence on the targeted islands, alongside attacks on Iran’s southwestern coastline to prevent reinforcements or fire support from reaching the area.
He added that the operation would extend beyond conventional warfare, incorporating cyber and electronic operations, as well as the use of submarines and precision missiles. These steps fall ضمن what he described as “pre-emptive securing” of the battlefield prior to any amphibious landing.
Securing Maritime Routes
According to Ghoneim, any potential European involvement would likely remain non-offensive, focusing instead on securing navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. This would include mine-clearing operations and maritime coordination, leveraging NATO interoperability and joint operational capabilities.
A Gradual Escalation Strategy
In assessing the broader trajectory of the war, Ghoneim noted that while the initial decision to enter the conflict may be debated, the ongoing military actions clearly follow a structured escalation model. This approach relies on gradually increasing pressure, in what he described as a form of “military bidding,” where each side seeks to exhaust the other and force strategic retreat.
Within this framework, amphibious operations represent an advanced stage of escalation, indicating a transition toward more direct and costly engagements.
Battlefield Complexities
Ghoneim emphasised that victory in such conflicts is not measured solely by achieving tactical objectives, but by the ability to subdue the opponent’s will. This can occur either through regime collapse or territorial control.
He highlighted the complexity of the battlefield, noting the vast geographic expanse of Iran compared to the concentration of targets on the Israeli side. The continuation of the war without meeting decisive conditions suggests a state of incomplete victory.
Iran’s Asymmetric Strategy
On the Iranian side, Ghoneim explained that Tehran does not pursue conventional victory. Instead, it operates within an asymmetric warfare framework focused on resilience and denying the enemy its objectives.
This includes expanding pressure by targeting economic interests, disrupting maritime routes, and striking sensitive locations within Israel. The goal is to prolong the conflict and increase its cost for adversaries.
A Prolonged War
Ghoneim projected that the war could extend for months, based on the scale of daily military expenditure and ongoing deployments. He suggested that operations involving strategic islands, particularly Khark, could represent a decisive turning point in the conflict.
He concluded that all parties are operating under the assumption of eventual success, leaving the outcome dependent on the effectiveness of military operations on the ground, within a regional environment marked by unprecedented complexity.
