“Conventional infantry troops.”
That’s not what anybody wants to hear from the Pentagon when it comes to options for the next phase of what Donald Trump described as “an excursion into hell” while regaling the GOP faithful at a fundraising dinner last week.
Over the weekend, reports suggested the Trump administration’s now seriously considering a partial invasion of Iran utilizing a combination of commando raids and Marine landings.
For now, The White House is still leaning on the “maximum optionality” line in a bid to tamp down public concern. Trump should have all options at his disposal, and it’s the Pentagon’s job to provide for those options, up to and including detailed plans for ground operations. Or so goes the talking point.
But the pace of troop deployments to the region is beginning to look a lot like the assembly of naval and air assets in the lead-up to “Operation Epic Fury.” Notwithstanding last week’s (failed) efforts to jawbone stocks higher (and oil lower), and setting aside Pakistan’s efforts to mediate a diplomatic settlement, it feels on some days as though Trump’s itching to escalate. If he does, it could be his political Waterloo.
Trump owes his political career in part to the demonization of neocon war hawks. In Iran, he’s on the brink of becoming one himself. Many argue he’s already undergone the transformation. And that invading Iran is the “natural” next step in that metamorphosis.
This scarcely needs repeating, but putting Marines in Iran would run completely counter to any version of “America First.” This is the sort of foreign policy decision JD Vance should dread. Put as a question: Do we really want to send another generation of the “left behind” demographic to fight in a Mideast quagmire?
We know how that’ll turn out. The ones who aren’t killed will return to the rural and Rust Belt communities from which they disproportionately hail traumatized, maimed and left to languish, nightmare-plagued, in alcohol- and opioid-addled purgatory.
Commandos are one thing. Going back through history, most major societies have a warrior class. For America, that’s Delta Force, the SEALs, the Rangers and so on. People who, for whatever reason, feel perpetually called to battle. The type of people who, when they’re done being official commandos, go on to become military contractors and people the CIA pays under the table. They’re going to fight anyway. So let ’em fight.
That’s not the Marines, and it damn sure isn’t “regular” Marines trained as “conventional infantry troops,” which is what makes The Washington Post‘s weekend reporting so unnerving and politically perilous for Trump.
“The Pentagon is preparing for weeks of ground operations in Iran, as thousands of American soldiers and Marines arrive in the Middle East for what could become a dangerous new phase of the war should President Trump choose to escalate,” the Post wrote, citing multiple US officials, none of whom were named.
“Any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops,” the Post‘s sources said.
As usual, it was unclear whether this was just another example of a mainstream media outlet deliberately playing up one option among many for the purposes of generating reader interest, but even if that’s the case, the Post will be forgiven: If any option deserves to be overplayed by the media, it’s this one to the extent press coverage forces the administration to reconsider.
Apparently, the Pentagon’s plans involve a mission to seize and hold Kharg Island, likely with Marines, augmented by commando raids against coastal installations responsible for Iran’s capacity to limit transit through the Strait of Hormuz. Some of the Post‘s sources suggested the planning envisions “weeks” of ground operations, but at least one person used the word “months.”
One former US defense official stated the obvious: Trump’s not the first president to be briefed on options for ground operations in Iran. This planning, while surely updated to account for the current circumstances, isn’t new.
The problem… well, I’ll put it this way: Trump wasn’t the first US president to be presented with the option to assassinate Qassem Soleimani either, nor was Trump the first US president to be briefed on options for bombing Iran’s nuclear sites.
You don’t have to be a West Point graduate to understand what’s risky about a Kharg Island operation, you just have know the definition of the word “island.” Once the Marines seize it, US forces would be concentrated in a very small area. Presumably — and with the caveat that Iran wouldn’t want to destroy its own infrastructure — the IRGC would rain down missiles and drones on them. Or try to.
As far as coastal operations around the Strait, the issue’s equally obvious: Once you’re on the Iranian mainland, you’ve invaded. With the exception of in-and-out commando raids, it’s not obvious what “leaving” looks like in that scenario if it’s not a retreat. I wonder sometimes if anyone at the Pentagon’s looked at a map: You’re not going to bring about regime change in Tehran from Bandar Abbas. They’re 800 miles apart.
Let’s say you do go with what one official described to the Post as “smarter ground mission[s]” (i.e., smarter compared to marooning 2,000 Marines on Kharg) by sending US infantry to “‘clear out’ some of Iran’s coastal military sites that pose a threat to commercial and military shipping.”
What does “clear out” mean? The Guards are going to keep coming. Their resupply routes are over land, and limited only by their capacity to evade US and Israeli airstrikes on convoys. Your resupply routes, by contrast, are from the sea, and limited by how many soldiers you send to regional bases which, as we’ve seen, will be taking fire from Iran around the clock.
If we’re honest, there are no real “ground options” for Iran. Not in the post-War sense of the term. There are just bad ideas and worse ones. The US military’s accomplished everything it can conceivably accomplish without incurring risks the political scientist in me can guarantee will be deemed wholly unacceptable by at least two-thirds of the voting public in America.
Trump needs to ignore the “sage” counsel of Mohammed bin Salman and Benjamin Netanyahu, cut a deal with Bagher Ghalibaf and Abbas Araghchi that reopens the Strait and forswears a nuclear weapon (and Jesus Christ, does anybody really believe that in the midst of all this there’s a team of mad scientists in Iran working 500 feet below ground on a bomb?), declare victory and tell the monarchies that a stratocracy in Tehran’s better than a theocracy.
The notion that US military force can turn Tehran into Dubai is every bit as absurd as the idea that a Palestinian genocide is a stepping stone towards turning Gaza into the “Riviera of the Mideast.” And to the extent Netanyahu’s of the mind that a failed Iranian state is better than an adversarial Iranian state, he should probably be ignored.
As it stands right now, on the morning of March 29, Trump can truthfully tell the American people that in just four weeks, the US destroyed the vast majority of Iran’s conventional military capabilities, dealt enormous damage to its industrial base (and thereby its capacity to build advanced ballistic missiles) and brought about what Trump himself described last week as a kind of regime change. All that from the sky, with minimal American casualties and, considering the scope of the operation, a surprisingly small number of civilian deaths in Iran.
I don’t care what anyone says, that’s a win. And, crucially, it’s accurate. For once, the truth’s on Trump’s side. Nobody in America save the neocons he made a political career of castigating, is going to blame Trump for not sending their sons and daughters to be killed and maimed in what would almost invariably be a years-long commitment.
It’s a miracle — and not a small one, either — that this “excursion” hasn’t yet spun off some manner of existential escalation or irrecoverable casualty. But it’s just a matter of time. A ground invasion of Iran is where Trump’s luck would (finally) run out.
Based on public information, these are the important years for the President’s zodiac sign: 1984, 1999, 2007, 2014, 2025, 2026, 2034, 2038, and 2043.
This is the type of analysis we yearn for.
It’s TACO or escalation.
Imagine all the resources and brainpower of the world to consult with, yet still end up with this situation.
It does have shades of ‘ End of Empire’ almost Shakespearean as a story of hubris and folly.
Yeah, but unlike trade wars one starts and can easily de-escalate, in actual wars it takes two to TACO. Iran has to agree and so far they don’t seem inclined.
The main obstacle to calling the status quo a victory for Trump is the fact that there is still no traffic going through the Strait of Hormuz. I think Trump feels that if he can just bring a credible threat of enormous violence to the table, he can negotiate a peace. Unfortunately, none of Trump’s credible threats have resulted in the unconditional surrender that Trump wants to claim credit for. Rather than simply applying pressure and waiting (embargo), Trump quickly gets bored and uses the shiny stick to do more bashing. Once Trump has his hands on an invasion force ready to invade, he won’t be able to say no. He will see it as a chance for his Battle of Gaugamela.
100% agree with this. Let’s take the win. Time to get the hell out of there.
What does Iran want? Nuclear weapons + missiles; missiles alone is not enough to deter attacks. SoH control; elevation to most powerful state in Gulf, a lever more effective than any proxy. Full sanctions relief.
How can Iran get what it wants? Not by giving Trump a deal, at this point. He is still looking for a “win”.
Iran’s logical move is hold out and inflict more pain on the US and others. Economic pain is what it can do now; it is probably looking forward to inflicting more casualties in a ground campaign.
I think Iran’s ability to inflict casualties on a US ground force should not be discounted. The US military seems to have learned very little about drone warfare, while Iran has. Its proxies have been successfully using battlefield drones (e.g Hezbollah on Israeli tanks).
Just don’t give a five year old the keys to the car!
Now is the time when I hope our robotic/autonomous capabilities are better than we realized.
https://www.anduril.com/
Are any military anti-drone systems by Andruil actually deployed yet? I can’t find any evidence.
Maybe.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/uk/2026/03/25/uk-navy-seeks-civilian-ships-to-carry-hormuz-minehunter-drones/
One more provider:
https://www.l3harris.com/newsroom/press-release/2026/03/l3harris-provide-autonomous-underwater-capability-us-navy-submarines
Meanwhile
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/israel-largest-tank-losses-40yrs-ambushes-21-merkava
If Hezzbolah knows how to hit Israeli tanks with drones, I assume their IRGC patrons do too.
A MEU is not a large force. I think each MEU only carries a few hovercraft for landing troops, vehicles, and supplies, and I also think the Marines got rid of their tanks and operate lightly armored LAVs. The 82nd brigade is probably light infantry, they aren’t helicoptering in armored vehicles. Iran can lose the islands in the SoH and still launch antiship missiles from the coastal mountains with Russian satellite targeting. If I was Iran, I would trade temporary control of the islands in return for enough US casualties to pressure the US into accepting a status quo ceasefire and the promise of negotiations. Iran has lots of experience with drawing out negotiations. And they’d still hold, unplayed, their “Trump card” of heavy damage to Gulf energy and water infrastructure, including Saudi and UAE bypass routes. It seems to me like Iran has more acceptable-to-them options than the US does.
As long as IRGC exist there is no win, period. Either you didn’t have to go in or if you gone, you can’t claim a win as long as IRGC still there. They will come back and hit you harder on the next cycle sooner than later. Defining the “Win” here matters
That’s an absurd definition of “win.” See my longer comment (below). You do realize how large the IRGC is, right? Google that. There’s no chance — none — of killing them all. Not unless you want to launch a Normandy-style landing and embark on old-school conquest. That’s what I meant in the article by “post-War.”
These will be my last comments on this article. If we pursue an IDF-style version of “total victory” here, we’re going to end up with 5,000-10,000 dead Marines flown home in boxes. Personally, I don’t want to see that.
We have to stop adopting an IDF-style definition of “victory.” I’ve noticed that every time Iran hits something with a drone, or a missile gets through somewhere or even just in cases where the debris from an interceptor falls on somebody, we panic and say the IRGC’s “not beaten.” Or point to the Strait and say “Well, it’s still closed!” It’s closed because we’re bombing them, and anyway, the fact that you can close a narrow waterway by threatening to blow up ships isn’t evidence that you have a mighty military. The Houthis managed to close the Bab al-Mandab and they’re a glorified militia.
It’s not quite as absurd as the notion that the existence of a few thousand guys with green headbands and 9mms in Gaza is evidence that Israel hasn’t achieved “total victory” over Hamas, but it’s close.
The IRGC’s a real military, yes, and Iran’s a sovereign state, yes (so, distinct on both accounts from Hamas), but there’s still an asymmetric / non-state element to the whole thing. This isn’t a scenario where you’re going to get a formal surrender, with a ceremony and a sword presentation. That’s never going to happen. And they’ll always have some missiles. And drones too.
But at some point you have to call it finished. It’s a blowout. Obviously. If a drunken Native American shoots somebody with a bow and arrow in Arizona we probably don’t need to launch a new offensive against the Apache on the excuse that we haven’t yet achieved “total victory” in the plains.
Put differently: We can’t let Tehran’s Monty Python Black Knight act goad us into an invasion.
Drunken native American, good one.
I see what I call “should do” articles in the major news opinion columns often. I never read them (although I read this one) because “should” always means “will never.” I’ve seen “Trump should take the win” on half a dozen youtube titles and headlines just this weekend. This band of religious sociopathic knuckle-dragging lickspittle meat-puppets will do nothing intelligent. The entire administration comes out of the Dunning-Kruger white paper. I expect more stupidity, incompetence, gaslighing, violence and jawboning in the weeks ahead. Maybe these sacks of brainless meat have a ~5% chance of “taking the win.” The US is losing all its credibility, all in the name of Dear Leader, the Idiot King.
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
The assumption here is that Iran will reopen the strait as part of its negotiations. It seems, more and more, that their negotiation position is to be a tollbooth; charging a fee for passage.
I doubt that arrangement would be acceptable to the rest of the gulf states even if Trump wants to accept such a deal.
Doesn’t Iran have to “Agree” to this? That seems to be the problem….
What interests me is the absence of any discussion of the plight of the Iranian people. I have no idea of how to help them (and perhaps the US has no duty to help them) but it would be interesting to see if anyone here sees reasonable options for doing so. Certainly a “Normandy-style landing” or a US and Saudi (& Pakistani?) invasion through Iraq (& eastern Iran?) or the use of tactical nukes might offer relief to the (few?) civilian survivors of such an invasion but this is taking crazy too far. How fragile is Trump’s ego? Are there any reasonable options because an “ending” which leaves an Iranian toll booth on the Strait of Hormuz is probably followed by the execution of (more) tens or hundreds of thousands of “disloyal” Iranian civilians.
When confronted with imminent failure, Trump has always taken one of several paths: (1) lie and quickly reverse course (the old “TACO”), (2) take them to court, (3) blame (or fire) someone and then move on, and (4) double-down.
It is going to be hard to TACO out of this one, as you cannot lie about the price of oil or whether the Strait of Hormuz is actually open or not. I don’t think as the aggressor (and potential war criminal) you can take them to court anywhere. You could fire Pete Hegseth and plot a new course — a truly “Trumpian” move — but that may not make things any better. Then there is doubling-down, which you could take to mean a ground assault of some sort, although it could also mean doubling-down on the rhetoric right before firing someone and then reversing course (a true Trump trifecta!)
Remember, Trump really only plays to the diehard 40% that always support him (the rest of us he just ignores, confounds, and confuses). If he truly loses the 11% or so that crossed-over to elect him then he is in real trouble, and that not only means the House but perhaps also the Senate as well in the upcoming midterm elections. Lose that and — dare I say it — you could see yet another impeachment looming on the horizon (I know, I know, I hate myself for even thinking of it!)
Trump’s gambit then, is whether a ground offensive has any chance to secure the Straight, and offer him a somewhat “cleaner(?)” exit. I myself don’t see it working for him, and I detest the idea of putting our troops in harms way just to assuage his massive ego. In days of yore, you might turn to your allies — or even the U.N. — to help secure the Strait for everyone’s sake, but as we all know our homey don’t play that.
You don’t need to hate yourself for thinking that – he thoroughly deserves to be impeached.
I agree and I don’t hate you for mentioning impeachment.
There’s this thing that everyone who’s lived in Texas for very long experiences. Someone from a foreign country–or sometimes just the East coast–says they’re going to be visiting the state, and they want to see the Alamo. (It’s always the Alamo for some reason. Perhaps they want to search the basement for their stolen bicycle.)
“Oh, are you staying in San Antonio?”
“No, Dallas.”
“Yeah, that’s not going to work.”
“What, would I need to rent a car?”
“Or a plane. It’s a five and a half hour drive. One way.”
The easiest way to convince someone is to show them a map of Europe with Texas superimposed on top. Texas stretches from the Atlantic coast of France to Vienna. North to South, it reaches from Copenhagen to Florence. Texas is big. 261,232 square miles big (for those not conversant with freedom units, that’s 676,587 square kilometers).
Iran is two and a half times bigger.
Witty Mic Drop, WMD, Witty Mic Drop.
I’ll take it!
A 79-year-old man under this pressure. Silly.
I agree completely, I hope he does take ‘the win’. I’m beginning to doubt my earlier call that moving troops to the region was a bluff.
In the area of unintended consequences, would anyone in Iran look around and say ‘we need to give up the nuclear bomb.”? Look over at Kim Jong Un, he’s launching missiles that can reach the US and he has nuclear weapons. Trump won’t dare touch him. Look at Ukraine, getting bombed daily and we won’t push back on Russia because they have a bomb. Surely Japan sees this too. Why would any developed country want to rely on someone else for protection, especially now that the ‘someone else’ has shown how unreliable they are and outright hostile to allies?
But, foot shooting is Trump’s long suit. Left foot this time, or right? Gee so many options!
Good call.