As the U.S.-Iran war escalates, there are growing concerns that a ground operation could be on the horizon as relentless U.S. airstrikes fail to break Tehran’s resolve.
U.S. 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, U.S. lawmakers pressed top Trump officials about whether a ground operation is being seriously considered. At a hearing on Tuesday, Gen. 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.”
Former U.S. 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 U.S. military operations in the Middle East from 2016 to 2019 as the head of U.S. 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.
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 doesn’t 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.
In the Iraq War, the U.S. military was able to use neighboring Kuwait as a staging ground for operations. The United States would not have as clear a route into Iran. This is one of many reasons military experts are skeptical that a large-scale ground operation is being seriously considered.
Retired Marine Col. Mark Cancian, who is a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said he thinks that the chances for a U.S. ground operation on mainland Iran are “nearly zero” and that taking this step would be “extraordinarily risky,” especially given that Tehran has ground forces in the “vicinity of 1 million.”
But going after strategically important islands is “more possible,” Cancian said.
The United States has the necessary forces in the region, including thousands of Marines and paratroopers, to seize islands such as Kharg, but it would be a “major combat operation,” Cancian said. Troops would be exposed to missile and drone fire from Iran, and there’s “no question” there would be U.S. casualties. “But it’s unlikely [Iran] could muster the firepower to drive us off,” he added.
The value of such an operation “would be to force an opening of the strait,” Cancian noted. Although Kharg sits roughly 400 miles from the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, it is a vital hub for Iran’s oil exports, and proponents of seizing it view the island as a pressure point that could give Washington leverage over Tehran.
That said, there’s debate over whether taking Kharg or other islands would be worth the risks—or help reopen the strait. Kharg is valuable to the regime and “our control of it might have some impact,” Votel said, but he’s not sure that it would do “much to help us with the Strait of Hormuz problem” or other operational goals.
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 U.S. troops to being shot at every single day by Iran. The problem is not: Can the U.S. military take territory? Of course we can. The problem is what happens the day after,” Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu, a U.S. 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 U.S. to sustain operations to hold territory in Iran, it’s just going to be another forever war,” Lieu said.
Some Republicans have raised similar concerns. “Iran is the hornet’s nest of hornet’s nests, and putting American troops on the ground would turn an already dangerous conflict into the next forever war,” Republican Rep. Pat Harrigan, a former Green Beret who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, said in a recent Facebook post.
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 U.S. 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.