— Hypothetically, if the U.S. wanted to carry out a naval landing in Iran, they would do it somewhere outside the Persian Gulf, most likely Chabahar or somewhere else in the flat open coasts of Sistan-Balochistan Province.

That way, they don’t need to risk their ships entering the Persian Gulf under heavy anti-ship fire and incoming drones while trying to land their soldiers on a rugged coastline full of fortified positions and artillery emplacements.

In Chabahar, they could bring their ships close enough to the shore with relative safety, under heavy air cover. U.S. jets, drones, and attack helicopters would suppress any anti-ship batteries heavily, and create sufficiently safe conditions for the initial ‘landing’. One also cannot rule out the possibility of deploying U.S. airborne forces to secure key sites before an amphibious landing is attempted.

This might be coupled with increased Balochi terrorist activity across the Iranian rear lines, complicating logistics and the transfer of equipment / reinforcements towards the front. During this phase of the assault, I don’t expect much effective Iranian resistance, due to the overwhelming U.S. firepower (armored vehicles, air support, superior weaponry, etc.)

In Sistan-Balochistan, Iranian ballistic missile platforms, MLRS systems, and armored formations capable of confronting the invading force are also fairly limited in quantity. The initial phase of resistance would thus focus mainly on assymetric warfare; small squads of Iranian ATGM crews, FPV drone operators, IEDs, drones, and what little precision-guided artillery & air support (UAVs) could be scrambled.

This would probably cause enough mayhem on the U.S. side to slow their advance, but it won’t be enough to stop them from making decent progress towards strategic objectives.

However, in my assessment, time will tell a different story. The longer the American force remains on the Iranian shores, the harsher their conditions will deteriorate. The Iranians will reorganize, MANPAD squads and remaining SHORAD systems will likely form too much of a risk for U.S. aviation to provide effective long-term air cover, local civilians would resist occupation with guerilla tactics, and Iran would have moved sufficient amounts of MLRS, missile, and artillery systems to the area to make any sustained American presence a nightmare. It would turn into a full-scale ground war, with Iranian tanks being deployed in combat for the first time since 1988.

I believe the U.S. is currently not willing to tolerate the sheer amounts of losses such an operation would entail. The public is already very opposed to the war, and this opposition would only increase. Dozens if not hundreds of American soldiers would die within the first month of such an operation, possibly thousands after several months. And what’s the strategic goal here? What purpose does it serve?

The answer is: None. A limited amphibious landing would not bring any benefit to the United States, unless they go all-out. That would entail deploying tens of thousands of troops and securing the entire southern coastline towards the Strait of Hormuz, in an effort to stop the disruption of shipping & bring Iran back to the table.

Realistically? Impossible. The disasters such an operation would bring to the region are unimaginable, and senior U.S. military officials will hopefully realize it is a non-starter before they ever embark on this campaign.

Iran would treat such a scenario as total war. A divine Jihad, magnitudes greater than the 8-year long Iran-Iraq war. All red lines would have been finally crossed. And in such a case, the IRGC Aerospace Force will take the entire region down with it. All economic, military and civilian infrastructure in the Gulf will cease to exist. Millions would be mobilized, and it will be a bloodbath on both sides.

@Middle_East_Spectator