...
By Peter Aitken
Politics Weekend Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The possibility of American troops on the ground in Iran drew a sharp warning from Tehran as a top official threatened to "set them on fire" and "punish their regional partners forever."
"Our firing continues. Our missiles are in place. Our determination and faith have increased," Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, Iran's parliament speaker, said Sunday.
The statement follows a week of actions taken by the Trump administration that indicate an increasing likelihood of troops on the ground in Iran, even as officials continues to insist that such action is unnecessary given the current progress of "Operation Epic Fury."
Read More on World
Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Saturday said the U.S. could achieve its goals without ground troops, even after the U.S. deployed thousands of them to the Middle East in recent weeks.
Newsweek has reached out to the White House and Pentagon via email for comment on Sunday.
Why It Matters
"Operation Epic Fury" has lasted for nearly a month since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Iran, hitting targets across the country and killing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with dozens of other high-ranking officials. President Donald Trump has described "Epic Fury" as an "excursion," an "operation," and a "war," and has changed his mind on the likely timeline on when it would end, first saying it would be over quickly, then saying it would take four to six weeks, then declaring victory over Iran.
Other officials in the administration have stuck to that longer-term timeline of four to six weeks. During the first couple weeks, the U.S. has claimed to have "obliterated" or "decimated" Iranian military capabilities and the nation's ability to produce weapons-grade nuclear material.
The administration has insisted it will not put troops on the ground and variously added it does not need to put troops on the ground, with many analysts labeling such a decision as the red line for many conservative voters.
However, escalation throughout the conflict, particularly Iran's decision to close the Strait of Hormuz and Trump's decision to bomb Kharg Island, have raised the prospect of a ground incursion by U.S. forces to secure vital energy infrastructure and supply chains to ease the sharply rising price of oil and gas.
...
Signs the US May Place Troops in Iran
Trump has multiple times said he will not put troops on the ground in Iran, such as on March 19 when he said he is "not putting troops anywhere." Although, he added that if he did, he wouldn't tell the press and has said he will have "no ground troops" or any deployment of "ground forces."
However, the U.S. has continued to build its presence in the Middle East, explicitly deploying assets that carried thousands of troops with them. The U.S. has an estimated 50,000 U.S. personnel in the region already but has considered sending 3,000 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division to join the 5,000 Marines currently en route to the region.
Last week, reports indicated the Pentagon is considering the deployment of 10,000 additional ground troops to the Middle East.
While some critics allege the buildup is a clear sign of intent to put troops in Iran, Republicans continue to say a buildup is separate from plans for any incursion or ground operation: Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma on Sunday told Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker that he thinks "the president's right to be able to put troops in the area" but that boots on the ground "is a different story."
"He is creating contingencies to put pressure on Iran to be able to finish the negotiation, to say, we are capable of doing more and doing what the United States military alone in the world can actually do," Lankford said*.* "I don't fault the president for being able to put additional pressure on Iran saying, come to the table. Let's get this done."
However, he later said, "We have to be able to know what the objectives are and what they're actually carrying out. So to be very clear on this, the worst thing that could happen is to be able to have this kind of conflict start, and to not end it, to leave it undone. We've go to be able to finish this."
The Wall Street Journal on Sunday reported that one of the operations the administration is considering would be to use the troops to extract nearly 1000 pounds of uranium from Iran, but noted that the president is concerned this would put American forces in the country for days at a time and is concerned about the danger to the forces during that time - even as he remains open to the idea as it helps achieve the goal of preventing Iran from ever making a nuclear weapon.
Task & Purpose reported last week the Pentagon put out a request to private contractors asking for possible delivery timelines of three days, 15 days, and 30 days for prefabricated bunkers that could withstand the "highest threat level," including designs to "protect personnel from blast and fragmentation threats." Any bunkers that meet those standards will be sent to Jordan.
This followed statements from top acquisition leaders for the Department of the Air Force made at a symposium last month just days before Operation Epic Fury commenced in which it was made clear the acquisition process needs to be "reshaped to meet the demands of modern warfare," including a shift to a focus on "mission outcomes" and how quickly complete, operational capabilities can be delivered.
On Saturday, the Washington Post reported the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran should Trump choose to escalate the matter, stressing that officials view it as separate from a "full-scale invasion" that would instead use a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the Post the Pentagon's job was "to make preparations in order to give the commander in chief maximum optionality."
"It does not mean the president has made a decision," she said.
Update 3/29/26, 8:40 p.m. ET: This article has been updated with additional information.
In a polarized era, the center is dismissed as bland. At Newsweek, ours is different: The Courageous Center—it's not "both sides," it's sharp, challenging and alive with ideas. We follow facts, not factions. If that sounds like the kind of journalism you want to see thrive, we need you.
When you become a Newsweek Member, you support a mission to keep the center strong and vibrant. Members enjoy: Ad-free browsing, exclusive content and editor conversations. Help keep the center courageous. Join today.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines