A Ground Invasion of Iran Will Only Make Matters Worse for the US, The Quagmire That Awaits
As President Trump Contradicts Himself on Deadlines, Troop Movements, and Diplomacy, the War Enters Its Second Month—and the Prospect of a Ground Invasion Threatens to Turn a Disaster into a Catastrophe
President Donald Trump has made several self-contradictory statements ever since the US and Israel attacked Iran on February 28, making it increasingly difficult to take anything that he says about the war seriously. In the early days, he insisted that the conflict would end soon, but it has now entered its second month. On March 21, he threatened to strike Iran’s power plants in 48 hours unless Tehran reopened the Strait of Hormuz. The waterway remains under Iranian control, and Mr. Trump has extended his deadline twice.
This pattern of threats and extensions is not new. It is the “art of the deal” applied to war—and it is not working. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed. Oil prices are up. US bases in the Gulf have been battered. And now, the US is reportedly sending more combat troops to West Asia in preparation for a possible ground attack. If that happens, what is already a disaster for the US will become a catastrophe.
The Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality
Despite his repeated claims that US forces destroyed Iran’s military capabilities, Tehran continues to attack US bases in the Persian Gulf and Israel. Last week, US media reported that an Iranian strike at the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia damaged an elite E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft and several KC-135 aerial refuelling tankers. These are not minor losses. The AWACS aircraft is a critical command and control platform. The tankers are essential for sustaining air operations. Their loss degrades US military capability.
Mr. Trump now says that his administration is in talks with Iran and a deal is possible. But Iran says that it has got a US proposal to end the war and has made its counter-proposal. The US wants Iran to abandon its nuclear programme, limit its missile programme and reopen the Strait; Tehran demands war reparations, guarantees against future attacks and an end to fighting on “all fronts.” Amid disputed claims about the talks, the US is also sending more combat troops to West Asia in preparation for a possible ground attack.
The No-Exit Dilemma
Mr. Trump appears to have no easy exit. The Strait of Hormuz was open before he launched the war. Ending the conflict now while the waterway remains under Iranian control would seem like a defeat. The US had a robust military footprint in the region. Today, most American bases in the Gulf have been battered.
This is the trap of escalation. When the initial objectives are not achieved, the temptation is to escalate further. More troops. More firepower. More targets. But each escalation raises the stakes, increases the cost, and deepens the commitment. What began as a limited air campaign becomes a sustained conflict. What began as a show of force becomes a war of attrition.
The US has not mobilised enough combat troops to launch a large-scale ground invasion. Many argue that the US could try to seize some islands in the Gulf for leverage, but any attack would be extremely risky for both troops and the global economy. A ground invasion of Iran would require hundreds of thousands of troops. It would require months of preparation. It would require a level of commitment that the US has not shown since Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Strategic Backfire
In Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s assassination voided his fatwa against the nuclear bomb, and its parliament is considering withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The war has accelerated Iran’s nuclear programme, not slowed it. The fatwa against nuclear weapons was a key constraint. With its author dead, the constraint is gone.
Crude prices, under $80 a barrel before the war, are now hovering around $114 a barrel. This is a windfall for Iran, which despite sanctions is making more money now because of wartime sanctions relief. The US had hoped that sanctions would cripple Iran’s economy. Instead, higher oil prices are filling Tehran’s coffers. Every dollar increase in the price of oil adds billions to Iran’s revenue. The war that was supposed to weaken Iran has made it stronger.
The US had a robust military footprint in the region. Today, most American bases in the Gulf have been battered. The Prince Sultan Air Base strike is just the latest example. Iran has demonstrated its ability to hit US assets throughout the region. The US has demonstrated its inability to stop those strikes.
The Human and Economic Costs
This war is already a disaster for the US, and Mr. Trump would worsen it by sending ground troops. The human cost would be immense. Iranian forces are battle-hardened and motivated. They would not be easily defeated. US troops would face urban warfare, guerrilla tactics, and a hostile population. The casualty figures would mount quickly.
The economic cost would be staggering. A ground invasion would require hundreds of billions of dollars. It would disrupt global oil supplies further. It would trigger a spike in oil prices that could tip the global economy into recession. It would divert resources from other priorities.
And for what? The stated objectives—regime change, nuclear disarmament, an open Strait—are no closer than they were on February 28. The regime remains in power. The nuclear programme continues. The Strait remains closed.
The Regional Consequences
A ground invasion would not only affect Iran. It would destabilise the entire region. The Gulf states, which have tried to stay neutral, would be drawn in. Hezbollah, which has so far been restrained, would enter the conflict. Shia militias in Iraq and Syria would escalate attacks on US forces. The risk of a wider regional war would become a certainty.
The US has allies in the region, but they are reluctant allies. They do not want to be dragged into a war with Iran. They have their own calculations, their own interests, their own vulnerabilities. A ground invasion would force them to choose sides—and the choice might not be the US.
The Diplomatic Off-Ramp
Mr. Trump’s escalatory rhetoric, including threats to strike Iran’s civilian infrastructure, only underscores his desperation. Instead of digging deeper into the hole he has put himself in, he must start looking for a way out. A ground attack would close even the few remaining off-ramps he has.
The off-ramps exist. The talks, however disputed, are a sign that both sides are willing to talk. The demands are far apart, but that is what negotiations are for. A ceasefire would stop the fighting and create space for diplomacy. The reopening of the Strait would restore global energy flows. A commitment to de-escalation would reduce the risk of wider war.
But these off-ramps require the US to accept something less than total victory. They require Mr. Trump to accept that the war did not achieve its objectives. They require him to accept that Iran will remain a regional power, that its nuclear programme will continue (under some constraints), that the Strait will be reopened on terms that recognise Iran’s sovereignty.
This is not surrender. It is realism. The US has lost wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It has survived. The world has moved on. The same would be true of this war. The only question is how many more lives will be lost, how many more billions will be spent, how much more damage will be done before the US accepts the inevitable.
Conclusion: The Wisdom of Withdrawal
Instead of digging deeper into the hole he has put himself in, Mr. Trump must start looking for a way out. A ground attack would close even the few remaining off-ramps he has. The war is already a disaster. It does not need to become a catastrophe.
The US has fought ground wars in the Middle East before. They have not ended well. The US invaded Iraq in 2003 with the promise of a quick victory. The war lasted eight years, cost trillions of dollars, and left the country in chaos. The US invaded Afghanistan in 2001. The war lasted twenty years, cost trillions more, and ended with a chaotic withdrawal that left the Taliban in power.
A ground invasion of Iran would be worse. Iran is larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Its population is more unified. Its military is more capable. Its terrain is more challenging. The US has no appetite for another ground war. The American people have no stomach for more casualties. The world has no patience for more American adventurism.
Mr. Trump must recognise that the war he started cannot be won by military means. It can only be ended by diplomacy. The sooner he accepts that, the better for everyone.
Q&A: Unpacking the Ground Invasion Threat
Q1: What contradictions has President Trump made regarding the Iran war?
A: Trump initially claimed the conflict would end soon, but it has entered its second month. On March 21, he gave Iran a 48-hour deadline to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face strikes on power plants. The deadline was extended twice, and the strait remains under Iranian control. He claims US forces destroyed Iran’s military capabilities, yet Iran continues to attack US bases and Israel. He now claims talks are ongoing and a deal is possible, but Iran says it received a US proposal and made a counter-proposal. The US is also sending more combat troops for a possible ground attack, despite talk of diplomacy.
Q2: How has the war backfired on US strategic objectives?
A: The war has backfired in multiple ways. The assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei voided his fatwa against nuclear weapons, and Iran’s parliament is considering withdrawing from the NPT—accelerating rather than slowing the nuclear programme. Oil prices have surged from under $80 to around $114 a barrel, providing Iran with wartime sanctions relief that actually increases its revenue. US bases in the Gulf have been battered, with a recent strike damaging an E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft and KC-135 tankers at Prince Sultan Air Base. Iran’s military capabilities remain intact.
Q3: What would a ground invasion of Iran entail, and why would it be worse than Iraq or Afghanistan?
A: A ground invasion would require hundreds of thousands of troops, months of preparation, and would face battle-hardened Iranian forces, urban warfare, guerrilla tactics, and a hostile population. Iran is larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, with a more unified population, more capable military, and more challenging terrain. The US has not mobilised enough combat troops for a large-scale invasion. Even limited operations like seizing Gulf islands would be extremely risky for troops and the global economy. A ground invasion would escalate what is already a disastrous war into a catastrophe.
Q4: What diplomatic off-ramps exist, and what would they require the US to accept?
A: Diplomatic off-ramps include a ceasefire, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and negotiations on the nuclear programme and regional security. They would require the US to accept something less than total victory: that Iran remains a regional power, that its nuclear programme continues (under some constraints), and that the Strait reopens on terms that recognise Iran’s sovereignty. Iran’s counter-proposal includes war reparations, guarantees against future attacks, and an end to fighting on “all fronts.” While the US and Iran positions are far apart, talks indicate both sides are willing to engage.
Q5: Why does the author argue that a ground invasion would be a mistake?
A: The author argues that the US has fought ground wars in the Middle East before—Iraq (2003-2011) and Afghanistan (2001-2021)—and they have not ended well. Both cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, and both ended without achieving their objectives. A ground invasion of Iran would be worse: the country is larger, the population more unified, the military more capable. The American people have no appetite for another ground war. Instead of escalating, the US should accept the inevitable and seek a diplomatic exit. A ground attack would close even the few remaining off-ramps available. The war is already a disaster; it does not need to become a catastrophe. The author concludes that the war cannot be won by military means and can only be ended by diplomacy.
