Deterrence or escalation? What the surge of US troops might mean in Iran.
There鈥檚 a saying often invoked in the run-up to wars: If you don鈥檛 know where you鈥檙e going, any road will get you there.聽
The late Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reportedly cited it privately within the George W. Bush administration as U.S. troops deployed to Baghdad, then publicly in 2013 to criticize President Barack Obama when the United States was fighting the Islamic State in Syria.聽
While President Donald Trump said in his primetime address Wednesday night that the U.S. will be ending its war with Iran 鈥渟hortly, very shortly鈥� as its objectives are "nearing completion,'' thousands of U.S. troops have continued streaming into the Middle East in a campaign the president has also said could last another two to three weeks.
Why We Wrote This
As more ground forces head to Iran, shifting threats and end goals could either baffle opponents and lead to success, or pull the United States into another forever war.
Still, he claimed the month-long conflict has been a success, as he sought to assuage high oil and gas prices driven聽by the war. "We have all the cards, and they have none.''
In the meantime, "We are going to hit them extremely hard,'' President Trump said. "We're going to bring them back to the stone ages, where they belong."
Veterans and analysts warn that the combination of force without a clear end goal in Iran could be a recipe for the kind of mission creep that turned conflicts in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan into quagmires.
For his part, Mr. Trump said last week that he could walk away from the war with or without a deal.
But such a move by President Trump would be difficult to fathom, analysts say. The Strait of Hormuz is essentially closed for business, driving up gas prices for U.S. voters, which, given this fall鈥檚 midterm elections, could jeopardize control of Congress by Republicans, the president鈥檚 party.聽
Iran still has enriched uranium buried underground as well, which could be used to make nuclear weapons. Preventing that possibility is the primary reason Mr. Trump said he went to war in the first place. And the Iranian regime still rules the country.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday that U.S. bases in the region are getting 鈥渕ore and more bunkers鈥� and that all options remain on the table, including sending in U.S. ground troops to Iran.
When a reporter asked the defense secretary this week what he would say to Americans who 鈥渓ove the president鈥� but 鈥渁re very worried about this notion of boots on the ground,鈥� Mr. Hegseth pushed back. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 understand why the [Republican] base 鈥� wouldn鈥檛 have faith in his ability to execute on this,鈥� he said.
The U.S. military is preparing for a number of possible scenarios, analysts say, such as using Army paratroopers or special Marine expeditionary units to seize control of Iranian islands, or perhaps to occupy them. This could precede or follow missions to sweep mines and escort oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, reopening the passage to commercial traffic.聽
Pentagon officials have also likely drawn up several plans for sending U.S. special operations units into Iran to secure enriched uranium. That uranium is believed to be buried under rubble following the massive U.S. bomb strikes on Iran鈥檚 nuclear sites last June. Open-source intelligence reports show increased air traffic from U.S. bases in the region where Delta Force and Ranger Regiment units are currently stationed.聽
Having growing numbers of U.S. forces on hand in the region 鈥渁lmost builds up an impetus all its own,鈥� says retired Army Lt. Col. Brad Taylor, who served in special operations, including eight years as a commander in the Delta Force.聽
This can create momentum to employ ground troops, he says. 鈥淵ou鈥檝e done so much planning, it鈥檚 almost like, 鈥榃ell, I guess we鈥檙e going to use them.鈥欌��
The U.S. military has struck more than 11,000 targets in 30 days, and officials say Iran鈥檚 ability to deploy missiles is degraded, but not destroyed.聽
鈥淵es, they will still shoot some missiles,鈥� Mr. Hegseth told reporters. 鈥淏ut we will shoot them down.鈥澛�
Kharg Island
Some administration advisers have argued that an operation like taking Kharg Island would be relatively low risk.聽
Michael Rubin, a neoconservative analyst formerly of the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority, has called it a 鈥渘o-brainer鈥� that would 鈥減rotect its oil facilities for a post-war economy.鈥�
鈥淒estroying Guard Posts on the Island Sets the Stage for U.S. Forces to Occupy It,鈥� Dr. Rubin, now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, amid reports that he has been advising Trump administration officials.聽
Such an operation could still happen, 鈥渆specially if people are telling Trump that this would be the easy way out that he鈥檚 been looking for,鈥� says Harrison Mann, a former Army major who specialized in Middle East analysis at the Defense Intelligence Agency.
In a textbook scenario, Kharg Island could be taken by 82nd Airborne Division聽paratroopers parachuting in by plane, or by Marines from expeditionary units dropped off by helicopters.聽
The latter would be more dangerous, since helicopters have to land at some point, making them relatively easy to hit. Planes carrying airborne troops are targets, too, but they don鈥檛 have to land.聽
Planes are also largely safe from Iranian drones, and fighter jet escorts can suppress remaining Iranian air defenses. But paratroopers land in a dispersed way that could also leave them vulnerable to capture, says Mr. Mann, now associate director for policy and campaigns at Win Without War, a network of progressive grassroots organizations.
鈥淓specially if it鈥檚 a combat jump where the aircraft is probably going to be going low and fast, it鈥檚 a hard landing, like you鈥檙e getting pushed out of a third-story window,鈥� Mr. Mann notes. 鈥淭hose soldiers are not hitting the ground with their weapons up.鈥澛�
Kharg Island has a decent-sized civilian population that may or may not have friendly feelings toward U.S. forces.
Iran could initially let U.S. troops land unopposed, Mr. Mann notes, which could amount to a trap to draw in and potentially target even more forces.聽
Troops on the ground need resupplies, logistical support, and medical care 鈥� all of which require security escorts. Then there is the matter of extraction, he . 鈥淎s dangerous as it is to bring troops onto the island, it鈥檚 even more dangerous to get them off of it.鈥澛�
The matter of nukes
Keeping Iran from making nuclear weapons has been a reason frequently cited by the Trump administration for starting the war. Mr. Trump cited it again this week.
Delta Force, an elite U.S. Army unit that specializes in raids and high-value target captures, was made for such missions as securing Iran鈥檚 uranium, with training in securing chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear hazards (known as CBRN).
But stores of enriched uranium 鈥� like those believed to be in Iran 鈥� are considered hard and deeply-buried targets (which also get their own acronym, HDBTs, in military parlance).
鈥淧eople keep talking about special operations forces doing that. Yeah, we train for things like that, but this is just rubble,鈥� says Mr. Taylor, who writes novels about military missions. When it comes to extracting Iran鈥檚 uranium, given the previous bombing raids, he adds, 鈥淵ou鈥檙e not looking at Special Forces guys 鈥� you鈥檙e looking at engineers with bulldozers.鈥�
If they were to be sent in, these forces would need a 鈥渉uge contingent鈥� of protection, he adds. This could amount to upward of 1,000 additional U.S. troops to form a security phalanx around the Special Forces troops, as well as the military engineers who would need to accompany them as they do their jobs.
Though the U.S. might get forces on the ground without much resistance, Iran could mount pinprick attacks, like single sniper attacks, to drive up U.S. casualties one by one, further inflaming resistance to the war at home in the U.S.
And even if Special Forces troops were successful in securing enriched uranium at some sites, there would continue to be questions about how much might still be out there.聽
Hypothetically, some intelligence assessments might conclude that there are five canisters of the material left, others 10, for example. If the U.S. finds eight, could the intelligence be wrong? Or could two canisters be missing? 鈥淚t鈥檚 hard to prove a negative,鈥澛燤r. Taylor says.
For now, Mr. Hegseth says the administration will not 鈥渇oreclose any options鈥� in Iran, though the defense secretary acknowledged that this refusal could be a strategic feint.聽
鈥淵ou can鈥檛 fight and win a war if you tell your adversary what you鈥檙e willing to do or what you鈥檙e not willing to do,鈥欌�� he told reporters. 鈥淥ur adversary right now thinks there are 15 different ways we could come at them with boots on the ground. And guess what? There are.鈥�
Editor's note: This story has been updated to reflect President Donald Trump's address to the nation about the war in Iran on Wednesday night.
