Two mountain ranges, two deserts, two seas: Iran’s geography is its greatest weapon
As hundreds of US troops approach the Gulf in their transport aircraft ahead of a possible invasion of Iran, they may permit themselves a glance out of the window to the terrain below.
A twisting sea dotted with islands; a coastline hundreds of kilometres long lined with sharp rockfaces; and mountains that domineer over any unwanted intruder.
With geography like this, it’s no wonder that military and political experts say a ground operation would come at a high cost to the United States.
Iran is vast. It has two long mountain ranges, the Caspian Sea to the north, and the Sea of Oman and the Gulf to the south.
Experts warn that once a ground war begins, its direction and length are hard to predict.
“If you look at the history of such military attacks, you’ll see that generally once ground attacks start, they are very difficult to contain,” Arman Mahmoudian, a research fellow at the University of South Florida’s Global and National Security Institute, told Middle East Eye.
Iranian experts who spoke to MEE point to three main scenarios if a ground war begins: the occupation of Iranian islands in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, an attack on Iran’s southern coast, or an invasion through Kurdish-populated areas in western Iran.
There are serious dangers and difficulties associated with every one of them.
Seizure of islands and control of the Strait of Hormuz
More than Iranian missile and drone attacks, what has put real pressure on President Donald Trump and his Department of War is the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Before the war, around 20 million barrels of oil, about one-fifth of global consumption, passed through the strait every day.
But since the conflict began, Iran has targeted ships moving through the waterway and effectively closed off the route, only allowing a handful of tankers from “friendly” countries to pass in recent days.
Some reports suggest Iran has charged certain ships up to $2m for safe passage.
Iran’s position and control over the strait have pushed global oil and gas prices higher, adding pressure on the US to reopen the route.
In response, the US has struck military sites on Kharg Island, Iran’s oil export hub, about 32km off the Iranian coast.
The attack has fueled speculation that Washington could try to seize the island, an idea Trump mentioned in a 1988 interview with The Guardian, long before entering politics.
But analysts say such a move would bring little benefit and could even backfire.
Mahmoudian told MEE that if the US tried to take Kharg, which handles about 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports, Iran might not even fight on the island.
“Iran has no reason to fight the US on that island because it has no chance of winning. Instead, they might let the Americans take the island and then target them there,” he said.
“The same problem exists with islands in the Strait of Hormuz, such as Qeshm, Hormuz and Larak. Any US operation there will face the same issue.”
This has even been acknowledged by Farzin Nadimi, an analyst at the staunchly anti-Iranian, pro-Israeli Washington Institute think tank.
In an interview with Iranian podcaster Bozorgmehr Sharafedin, he said: “The military occupation of Kharg is neither practical nor logical. Even if Iranian islands are taken, it would be very hard to hold them.”
Experts also warn that seizing Kharg would likely push oil prices even higher.
“The US can take the island and stop the flow of oil from Iran, but that will hurt the global energy market. Taking out Iran’s about 1.5 million barrels of oil a day will push prices up again,” Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, told MEE.
Beyond Kharg, Iran has 42 islands in its southern waters, 18 inhabited and 24 uninhabited.
The largest is Qeshm, which stretches along the Strait of Hormuz. Covering about 1,500 sq km, it is larger than countries like Bahrain and Singapore, and lies just 2km from the Iranian mainland.
Three other islands, Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb and Abu Musa, are especially sensitive. Often referred to in Iran as the “Triple Islands”, they are also claimed by the United Arab Emirates.
This has raised the possibility that the US could seize them and hand them over to the UAE.
But Vatanka warns this could create long-term problems for the Gulf state.
“Maybe the US wants to do its friend, the UAE, a favour, although the UAE would have to think hard about whether they want those islands in such conditions,” he said.
In the long term, Vatanka added, “that becomes a point of tension and conflict with whatever remains of Iran for decades”.
Both Vatanka and Mahmoudian say that if the US were to seize islands, the goal would likely be political to gain leverage in negotiations and force concessions from Iran in exchange for the territories’ return.
Senior Iranian sources have previously told MEE that Iran will respond to any ground invasion by heavily targeting the UAE, which it deems complicit in the war.
Occupying the southern coastline
Iran’s southern coastline stretches from near Abadan, on the Iraqi border, for more than 1,800km to the Gulf of Gavater, close to its border with Pakistan.
It runs along the provinces of Khuzestan, Bushehr, Hormozgan, and Sistan and Baluchestan, covering the northern shores of the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman.
The long length of this coastline could make it hard for Iran to defend every point against a land attack. But it would pose the same challenge for any invading force.
Mahmoudian suggests that if the US were to launch a ground invasion beyond the islands, the coastline could be a key target to tighten control over the Strait of Hormuz, particularly because Iran’s southern coast lies close to US bases across the Gulf.
“For a ground attack, the assaulting army needs to be close to its bases for logistics, to bring in fresh forces, and to move casualties back from the front,” he said.
He also noted that the US's superior naval power in the region adds to this possibility.
“The US navy is now dominant in the Persian Gulf, and the forces deployed are Marines trained for amphibious operations.”
Still, Mahmoudian warns that even a limited coastal operation could quickly spiral.
“Suppose your goal is to control part of Iran’s coast near the Strait of Hormuz. You may take the coastline, but your forces will remain under constant attack,” he said.
“To protect them and set up defensive positions, you would need to push further inland. At that point, controlling escalation becomes very difficult.”
Iran’s size would again become a major factor in such a scenario.
Nadimi noted in his podcast interview that Iran has already used its geography to keep up attacks, despite weeks of US and Israeli strikes. Iran’s missile launchers are spread across the country, and its drones and other projectiles are stored in underground facilities.
“Iran is still firing liquid-fueled missiles,” he said. “These require large launchers that must be prepared in the open, and Iran has been able to do this because of its vast territory.”
Iran covers more than 1.4m sq km, making it the 17th largest country in the world. It also includes two major deserts, Dasht-e Kavir and the Lut Desert.
The country has more than 390 mountains above 2,000 metres, including 92 higher than 4,000 metres. The Middle East’s highest peak, Mount Damavand, which rises to about 5,700 metres, is also in Iran.
Vatanka says these geographic features would favour Iran in a ground war, drawing a comparison with the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.
“Iran is about four times larger than Iraq, which means the targets are spread over a much wider area,” he said.
“The country is mountainous, and we know the Iranian regime has spent years placing military assets underground. On top of that, Iran has prepared for this kind of scenario for a long time and is far more capable of handling it than Saddam Hussein was in 2003.”
Iran's nuclear sites, a chief target for Israel and the US, are also buried under the mountains, hard to reach and easy to defend.
Attack from Kurdish regions
Another possible scenario for a ground attack on Iran would come from the west, through the Zagros mountain range and the Kurdish regions near the borders with Iraq and Turkey.
From the early days of the US-Israeli war, some suggested that Iranian Kurdish armed groups based in Iraq could be used as ground forces in such a push.
So far, these groups have avoided direct involvement. But during an online conference at Tel Aviv University on 19 March, commanders of the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK) and the separatist Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK) signalled interest in collaboration with Israel.
Even so, experts say this scenario is unlikely to deliver the results Washington wants.
According to Mahmoudian, in this scenario, the US would provide air support while Kurdish forces carry out ground operations.
“The US will most likely send Kurdish forces forward first, because they know the terrain,” he explained. “They would do the hard part, fighting in difficult terrain and crossing the Zagros mountains, while American forces follow behind.”
Mahmoudian warns that such a strategy would come at a high cost for Kurdish fighters, given the strong military presence of Iranian forces in the region.
Last month, MEE reported that Iran had already moved large numbers of troops into the area under the cover of military exercises, preparing for exactly this kind of scenario.
Vatanka also doubts that Kurdish groups could sustain such an operation, while many of their forces are lightly armed and lack large units.
“They can rely on US and Israeli air cover, but they would have to accept heavy losses,” he said. “As they move deeper into Persian-majority areas beyond Kurdish regions, their situation becomes even more difficult.”
He added: “I don’t see Iranian Kurdish forces moving from Iraq into Iran and advancing all the way to Tehran. They simply do not have that capability.”
What is the US strategy?
The US strategy and goals in the war remain unclear.
If the aim is to change Iran’s leadership, as the US and Israel suggested when they began the war on 28 February, weeks of air strikes and the assassination of many military and political figures have not shaken the country’s power structure.
If the goal is to increase pressure and push Tehran to negotiate, there is little evidence so far that it has worked, and it has perhaps made the Iranian leadership more hawkish and resolute.
Experts also warn that any occupation would likely strengthen Iranian nationalism.
Historically, the Islamic Republic has shown it will not negotiate under occupation.
Mahmoudian points to the 1980–1988 Iran-Iraq War, when Iraq captured several small cities, took the port of Khorramshahr and besieged Abadan.
“During the Iran-Iraq War, we saw that Iran does not negotiate or make peace while its territory is occupied,” he said.
“In the first year, when Iraq captured Khorramshahr and besieged Abadan, Iraq offered Iran negotiations. Iran refused as long as its territory was under foreign control.”
Vatanka agrees, arguing that there appears to be no coherent strategy behind the US approach in Iran.
He notes that “regime change”, mentioned by Trump and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the start of the war, was quickly abandoned.
“There is no grand strategy for regime change. The grand strategy amounted to a hope that the people of Iran would rise and take the regime down,” he said.
“That’s not strategy, that’s a hope.”
This article was sourced from Middle East Eye.
Read Full Article on Middle East Eye →