Will the U.S. Try a Ground Invasion?!
WANA (Jul 02) – From the beginning of the Ramadan War until today, one of the options consistently considered by the United States in confronting Iran has been a ground invasion—an option that, according to assessments by U.S. intelligence and security agencies, would entail enormous financial and human costs.
Some American analysts believe that, aside from the financial costs, even if Trump were to mobilize 100,000 troops for an invasion of Iran, the United States would, in the most optimistic scenario, suffer 20,000 fatalities. Iranians, however, estimate the number of American casualties would be far higher. At the same time, there is no guarantee that Trump’s military would achieve victory.
Nevertheless, if the author were asked whether there is reason to be concerned about a ground invasion of Iran, he would say that, despite all its uncertainties and unpredictability, ground warfare is the only conventional military option the United States has not yet tested.
Trump and his allies tried every method of warfare during those 40 days and, without exception, all of them reached a dead end.
Preparing for a Ground Invasion of Iran: A Real Threat or Strategic Bluff?
WANA (Jun 11) – As some U.S. sources claim that preparations are underway for a potential ground operation against Iran, military analysts argue that such rhetoric appears to be more a component of psychological warfare and strategic pressure than an indication of an imminent military plan. An assessment of the realities on the ground […]
We Iranians, based on our understanding of our people, armed forces, and geography, know that this option, like all the others, will also end in failure. But Trump may say to himself: since I have already tried every other path, I might as well try this one too—perhaps victory lies in this final option.
The Strait of Hormuz has placed the throat of the U.S. economy—and especially Europe’s—in Iran’s powerful hands, with consequences that would be extremely costly for the enemy.
We know, and they know, that if the war resumes, the strait will be completely closed. But the question remains: is there anything that would lead the United States to accept these heavy consequences and, despite the reluctance of White House leaders, embark on a ground adventure?
Such a move would undoubtedly be a major risk. But the United States views a war with Iran as the scene of the defeat and collapse of its own hegemony. Naturally, after years of global dominance, witnessing such a scene would not only be unpleasant but deeply painful.
The late Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Commander-in-Chief Major General Hossein Salami reviews military equipment during the IRGC ground forces military drill in the Aras area, eastern Azerbaijan province, Iran, October 17, 2022. IRGC/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
Add to this Israel’s uncertain future following Iran’s rise in power, then assign a probability in your own mind to the risk of a ground invasion—and ask yourself whether Trump will test this option.
If, instead of Trump, Rubio, and Hegseth, forward-looking figures such as Kissinger—who understood political equations and could foresee the costs, benefits, and consequences of every action—were in power, they might have ended the war quickly and accepted reality by pursuing a wiser exit from this predicament.
In that case, we could confidently say today that the war would not resume. But when you are dealing with unprincipled figures such as Trump and Hegseth, who have now dragged their own country into a strange quagmire, one should not expect them to refrain from political suicide.
The 8-Layer Shield: Iran’s Plan for Ground Invasion
WANA (Mar 28) – Amid threats of U.S. heliborne operations and ground troop deployment, a military official has detailed the organization of Iran’s ground defense. The official described the strategy as a coordinated system of eight distinct layers, each with a specific mission to confront potential aggression. “The enemy’s perception of facing a single, […]
On paper, and by every formula you use, the United States is the loser, and experts all say that prolonging the conflict will only make the country’s situation more difficult.
Ammunition shortages, destroyed radar systems, and damaged military bases have also drastically reduced America’s chances of victory and made its defeat almost certain. Nevertheless, Trump is the president of the United States today, and it is impossible to predict him with precision.
Therefore, as stated earlier, although the United States cannot emerge victorious from any renewed attack in any case, it would not be entirely accurate to claim that war will not happen simply on the basis of these factors.
