...

By Newsweek Editors

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 Trump administration is weighing the option of deploying U.S. ground troops to fight the war in Iran. Such a move would have been unthinkable just a few weeks ago and would fundamentally alter the character, and severity, of the conflict.

According to Reuters, officials are discussing the possible deployment of "thousands of U.S. troops" to the region to broaden military flexibility as the campaign evolves. No decision has been made, but the talks mark a potential shift away from an operation dominated by air and naval power toward limited, targeted ground missions.

The stated goals of "Operation Epic Fury" are sweeping: dismantle Iran’s missile capabilities, weaken its navy, and ensure it cannot develop a nuclear weapon.

Read More on Analysis

There are five potential scenarios for what ground troops in Iran might look like. The most sensitive involves securing Iran’s stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, an operation officials privately describe as extraordinarily complex and dangerous.

Another option would be the seizure of Kharg Island, the terminal that handles roughly 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports, though U.S. officials warn such a move would expose U.S. troops to Iranian missile and drone attacks.

A third scenario focuses on the Strait of Hormuz, with troops potentially deployed along Iran’s coastline to help guarantee the safe passage of oil tankers.

A fourth would see U.S. forces tasked with protecting critical energy infrastructure, such as the South Pars gas field, echoing missions carried out during the Iraq war.

The fifth, and most extreme, option is a full-scale, Iraq-style invasion, which officials broadly view as highly unlikely.

An unnamed White House official told Reuters: "There has been no decision to send ground troops at this time, but President Trump wisely keeps all options at his disposal.

"The ​president is focused on achieving all of the defined objectives of Operation Epic Fury: destroy Iran's ballistic missile capacity, annihilate their navy, ensure their terrorist proxies cannot destabilize the region, and guarantee that Iran can never ​possess a nuclear weapon."

None of the five ground troop options is thought to be imminent, but their consideration underscores how quickly the conflict could deepen. And how narrow the gap has become between limited war and a far more expansive one.

1. Securing Iran’s Nuclear Materials

One of the most sensitive and strategically significant options under discussion is sending U.S. forces to seize Iran’s stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. This option would be an exceptionally complex mission with no guarantee of success.

Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is not concentrated in a single location but spread across multiple sites, many of them deeply buried, hardened against attack and protected by layered air defenses. Even a limited operation led by elite U.S. special forces would likely require broader military support, including air cover and sustained logistics on the ground.

The risks extend beyond the battlefield. Any attempt to physically secure nuclear material could be interpreted by Tehran as an existential threat to the regime. That, in turn, could trigger rapid escalation, likely expanding the conflict beyond its current scope and drawing in regional actors.

2. Seizing Kharg Island

Another option is a ground operation to seize Kharg Island, the terminal that handles roughly 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports. The U.S. has already conducted strikes against targets there, but officials are now debating whether physically controlling the island would be more effective than simply destroying its infrastructure.

The strategic logic is clear: holding Kharg would severely restrict Iran’s ability to export oil, cutting off a critical source of revenue while giving Washington leverage over global energy flows.

However, the risks are significant. Reuters reports that U.S. officials have warned any such operation would be "very risky," as Iran can target the island with missiles and drones, potentially dramatically increasing the number of U.S. casualties.

Its small size and exposed position in the Gulf would leave U.S. forces vulnerable, potentially turning the island into a high-profile and difficult-to-defend outpost in an active conflict zone.

...

3. Securing the Strait of Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz remains the most immediate flashpoint in the conflict, with global oil supplies at stake. While U.S. operations have so far relied on air and naval power, securing safe passage for tankers could require deploying troops along Iran’s coastline.

Framed as a mission to protect global trade and energy supplies, such a move would still mark a significant escalation. Even a limited presence on Iranian territory risks provoking retaliation, including attacks on U.S. forces and regional assets. What begins as a defensive operation could quickly expand, pulling Washington deeper into a broader and more unpredictable conflict.

4. Protecting Key Energy Infrastructure

A more limited option under discussion is deploying U.S. forces to secure critical energy assets, such as the South Pars gas field. The approach would echo past U.S. missions in Iraq, where troops were tasked with safeguarding vital oil infrastructure during periods of instability.

While narrower in scope, such operations rarely remain contained. Securing large, high-value sites typically requires a sustained ground presence, making forces vulnerable to missile, drone, or insurgent-style attacks.

5. Full-scale Invasion

The most extreme option—a full invasion and occupation of Iran—remains highly unlikely. The scale, cost and military challenge would far exceed Iraq or Afghanistan, both of which evolved into long, costly conflicts lasting years and costing trillions of dollars, with no clear or lasting political resolution.

Iran’s larger population, difficult terrain and stronger state institutions would make any occupation even more complex.

The Political Reality: Strong Public Opposition

Yet while military options are expanding, public support is not.

Polling cited by CNN shows overwhelming opposition to sending ground troops. A CNN survey found Americans opposed deployment by 60 percent to 12 percent. A Quinnipiac poll found an even wider gap, 74 percent to 20 percent.

Crucially, this opposition spans party lines. Even among Republicans, support remains limited: just 27 percent in the CNN poll and 37 percent in the Quinnipiac survey backed sending troops.

That creates a clear political constraint for Trump, who has repeatedly promised to avoid new, prolonged Middle East wars. He is also acutely aware the Midterms are looming.

The Bottom Line

The fact that putting U.S. boots on the ground in Iran is being considered illustrates how quickly the conflict could shift from a campaign of strikes into a far more dangerous phase.

Even limited ground deployments carry significant military, political and economic risks, and history suggests such missions are difficult to contain once begun.

For now, the administration appears to be preserving flexibility rather than committing to escalation. But the line between current operations and sending ground troops is getting thinner, exposing a key dilemma: how to achieve ambitious war goals without sliding into a much larger conflict.

How the U.S. handles that balance in the coming weeks could shape not just the course of the war, but its wider global impact.

Hey gang, Carlo Versano here. I hope you enjoyed this article. As Newsweek's Director of Politics and Culture and editor of the 1600 newsletter, I'm keen to hear what you think. Now, Newsweek is offering a new service to allow you to communicate directly with me in the form of a text message chat. You can sign up and get a direct line to me, as well as the reporters who work for me. You can shape our coverage.

As a Newsweek member, we're offering this service to you for free. You can sign up below, or read more about how it works here. Let's talk!

View 0 Comments

Request Reprint & Licensing

Submit Correction

View Editorial & AI Guidelines