As the US-Iran war escalates, there are growing concerns that a ground operation could be on the horizon as relentless US airstrikes fail to break Tehran’s resolve, according to an analysis by the Foreign Policy magazine. US President Donald Trump has refused to rule out the possibility of deploying ground forces as the war, which is largely now a fight for control of the Strait of Hormuz, continues to wreak havoc on global energy markets. And the United States has reportedly deployed additional military personnel to the region, including special operations forces and medics, to expand Trump’s menu of options. This week, US lawmakers pressed top Trump officials about whether a ground operation is being seriously considered. At a hearing on Tuesday, General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would not explicitly state whether he anticipated that ground combat would be the next step for the United States in the fight. But Caine conceded that “air power’s got limits” and said that “we always develop an unbelievable amount of options.” Ground Operation Needs 100,000 Soldiers Former US military officials and experts told Foreign Policy that the United States does not appear to be moving toward a major ground operation in Iran, which would require far more troops than the roughly 50,000 that are currently deployed in the region. But they said that it’s possible there will be ground forces involved in more limited operations, such as moving to seize important islands—like Kharg—or special-operations raids on military sites. “I don’t think we’re looking to put troops in downtown Tehran,” said retired Army Gen. Joseph Votel, who oversaw US military operations in the Middle East from 2016 to 2019 as the head of US Central Command. He also noted that the White House does not appear to be considering a ground operation targeting nuclear sites. “What we might see is the use of ground forces in limited raids that are going after key locations,” Votel said. Such operations would perhaps be “focused on addressing the military capabilities that Iran seems to be relying on right now that are generally located in the coastal areas” or even somewhat inland, he added. Potential targets could include command and control locations, launch sites, storage locations, communication nodes, and other critical infrastructure that support Iran’s ability to continue influencing the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. Seizing Mainland Territory is Complicated But a bigger operation, such as one aimed at seizing mainland territory adjacent to the Strait of Hormuz in an effort to reopen the waterway, would likely require at least 100,000 troops, according to Votel. “This is a huge area,” he said. “And we have to expect that Iran is going to fight back and try to oppose that.” Iran does not have a “particularly powerful army,” but it is capable of putting up a resistance, Votel said. The United States would also face serious challenges in bringing in both troops and supplies due to geographic constraints and other logistical obstacles. A screenshot from a video showing a US soldier aboard a helicopter issuing a warning to an Iranian vessel near the Strait of Hormuz last April (CENTCOM) Serious Concerns Among Lawmakers Lawmakers in Washington also have serious concerns about the risks of sending ground forces into Iran, including in any operation to capture islands. “I don’t see how it’s possible to just take an island and not expose US troops to being shot at every single day by Iran. The problem is not: Can the US military take territory? Of course we can. The problem is what happens the day after,” Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu, a US Air Force veteran who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told FP. “You don’t get to just take over territory and say the war is over, you got to hold that territory. And that is where a huge problem comes in. For the US to sustain operations to hold territory in Iran, it’s just going to be another forever war,” Lieu said. Risky for Trump Putting boots on the ground in Iran, in any capacity, would also be politically risky for Trump and the Republican Party. The war, which has driven up gas prices, is unpopular with American voters, and the GOP is increasingly mindful of the conflict’s potential to undermine its slim majority in Congress in November’s midterm elections. But even in this context, Lieu emphasized that Trump’s past behavior shows that he has a massive appetite for risk, as evidenced by his willingness to send ground forces into Venezuela earlier this year. “I never underestimate the capacity of Donald Trump to do stupid, harmful things. He seems to have a distorted view of reality. I don’t believe he’s being fed the correct facts from his advisors. I think he’s shielded from bad news. So, I certainly think that, in his head, he thinks a ground invasion is a plausible option,” Lieu said. A recent report from the Washington Post suggested that the US Defense Department has not kept the White House fully in the loop on munitions shortages brought on by the war, which could potentially limit Trump’s options to expand the fight. But the White House rejected the notion that there’s any daylight between the president and the Pentagon. “Any suggestion that the Commander-in-Chief does not receive timely, accurate information from the Pentagon is ridiculous,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told FP via email. “The United States Military has more than enough munitions, ammo, and stockpiles to serve all of President Trump’s strategic goals and beyond, and Operation Epic Fury has exposed what happens when you mess with the United States,” Kelly said. “Even still, the President has urged our defense contractors to constantly produce more made-in-America weapons, which are the best in the world.” This comes as the Trump administration faces increasing scrutiny over its objectives in the war, which have shifted repeatedly, making it difficult for the military to execute its mission. “The military has done exactly what has been asked of them, and they’ve done that to the best of their ability,” Votel said, but it’s been challenging “to appreciate what the long-term strategic objectives” are in the war.
