A US ground invasion of Iran could push oil prices to $200 a barrel and intensify threats to Gulf shipping and energy infrastructure, according to commentary published by OilPrice.com. The article, by supply chain consultant James D. Durso, argues against proposals to deploy troops, including plans to capture Kharg Island, which it identifies as Iran’s principal oil export terminal.
Durso writes that Brent crude exceeded $104 a barrel during the month discussed in the article, against what he describes as the biggest oil supply disruption on record. He also says Washington was forced to purchase Russian diesel. The $200 figure is presented as a possible consequence of an invasion, rather than an established price outlook or a forecast attributed to a market institution.
The commentary reports that Iran shut the Strait of Hormuz and asserted sovereignty over the waterway following a US-Israeli air and naval campaign. It says Iranian and Houthi missile and drone attacks have also targeted Gulf partners’ airports and energy facilities. Durso argues that a ground offensive would compound those vulnerabilities rather than secure regional energy flows or protect US allies.
The article questions whether military escalation could achieve Washington’s objectives. Citing a leaked intelligence assessment, it says Iran retained about 70% of its missiles and launchers after 11,000 strikes over five weeks. Durso also points to Iran’s mountainous and desert terrain, population of 90 million and preparations for asymmetric warfare as obstacles to an invasion and any subsequent occupation.
As an alternative, Durso advocates diplomacy and pressure coordinated through alliances. He cites a June agreement under which Iran would abandon nuclear weapons and dilute its enriched uranium, while acknowledging that the arrangement collapsed within weeks. The commentary concludes that protecting shipping routes and deterring nuclear proliferation remain US interests, but argues that occupying Iran would impose additional military and fiscal costs without reliably delivering either objective.