How Trump can avoid a bloody, costly ground war in Iran
The Hill · C · trust 48/100
Comments: by Harlan Ullman, opinion contributor - 08/03/26 12:30 PM ET Comments: Link copied by Harlan Ullman, opinion contributor - 08/03/26 12:30 PM ET Comments: Link copied President Donald Trump exits Air Force One at Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, N.J., Friday, July 31, 2026, after a trip to Camp David, the presidential retreat. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) The term military “ excursion ” into Iran was coined by President Trump. The “excursion” is now entering its sixth month and has been downgraded to a mere “ skirmish .” Yet, to any objective observer, the tens of thousands of strikes by U.S. forces on Iran and persistent attacks by Iran against U.S. and Gulf targets fit the definition of a war.
Time will tell whether the U.S. war on Iran will be a blunder or a breakthrough in changing the behavior of the leaders in Tehran.
Last week, massive attacks were temporarily placed on hold , resumed, and were then paused. Domestic political pressure on Trump and the Republicans over rising economic costs is fierce. Current polls suggest 70 percent of Americans oppose the war. With the House of Representatives out of session and the Senate set to leave soon, constituents will not be silent over these matters.
Despite assertions by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth that Iran has reached its “weakest point militarily,” Tehran has continued to conduct massive drone and missile strikes. Some intelligence suggests Iran has reconstituted and increased its capacity to build these weapons. And although the true numbers are classified, it is clear that the U.S. and its Gulf allies are exhausting defensive missile magazines, a powerful constraint.
One U.S. option is increasing air and missile strikes. But suppose the list of Iran’s military targets has been exhausted. If so, attacks on largely civilian infrastructure to include electrical and power grids, bridges and roads and television and cell phone networks would follow.
The likely outcomes are all bad. Trump would be accused of crimes against humanity, and the Iranian public would coalesce in their resentment against the U.S.
In any escalation, Iran would strike Gulf desalination and energy infrastructure. Combined, several gulf states depend on desalination for more than 90 percent of their drinking water. The result would be a humanitarian catastrophe. No plans exist to deal with this contingency. And of course, oil could soar to $150 or even $200 a barrel, triggering an international economic disaster.
Could the U.S. employ ground troops? It could, but 74 percent of Americans oppose the idea. Even if the U.S. has two Marine Expeditionary Units and components of the 82nd or 101st Airborne in the region, those forces are too small to achieve any realistic military objectives. A Marine Expeditionary Unit numbers only about 2,500. Only 800 are infantry and able to conduct very limited ground operations. Airborne units deploy with only a few days’ worth of bullets, beans and batteries. Resupply is essential for both.
If Bandar Abbas, on the northern border of the Strait of Hormuz, were attacked, retired U.S. Army General Barry McCaffery believes 600,000 troops would be needed to sustain ground operations. Attacking Kharg Island would require a nearly unopposed 400-mile transit from the eastern end of Hormuz, which seems unlikely.
Could Trump employ a nuclear weapon, or at least as a demonstration shot, to convince Iran to negotiate or surrender? That would open a catastrophic Pandora’s Box of consequences. Trump would probably be declared a war criminal. No matter where and how the weapon was detonated — an air or surface burst — either would have destructive outcomes.
If such a weapon were exploded in the atmosphere, an electromagnetic pulse would destroy virtually all chip installed systems for hundreds of miles beyond Iran. Due to the costs involved, few modern militaries, including those in the Gulf, are hardened against electromagnetic pulses.
A surface burst would form a radioactive cloud that would likely travel east, given the winds. Considering the states that are east of Iran, how might that affect Vladimir Putin and the war in Ukraine?
Given this list of unpalatable options, the most promising is to claim victory and pursue negotiations. Trump will say he has brought Iran to the negotiating table, even though talks between Washington and Tehran have not stopped. The first issue would be reopening the Strait of Hormuz and securing the Bab el-Mandeb Strait adjacent to Yemen. The likely outcome would be oil prices dropping and stock markets redounding.
Trump could take the credit — and he would. And a futile, bloody ground invasion would be sensibly avoided. But for now, all the world wonders what will happen.
Harlan Ullman is senior adviser at Washington’s Atlantic Council, chairman of a private company, and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. His next book, co-written with Field Marshal The Lord David Richards, former United Kingdom chief of defense and due out this Fall, is “Who Thinks Best Wins: How Decisive Strategic Thinking Will Prevent Global Chaos.”
Read the original at The Hill →
Open in TruthVane →