Even as Donald Trump pushes for talks to end the war with Iran, the United States has ordered the deployment of thousands of troops to the region, stoking fears that the president is preparing for exactly the kind of risky ground invasion he has campaigned against in the past.
Iran has publicly rejected Trump’s diplomatic approach and threatened massive retaliation if the US places troops on Iranian soil in an attempt to break Tehran’s will. For a president who criticized the so-called “forever wars” of his predecessors, scenarios of possible escalation bring the prospect of major casualties.
Military authorities — current and former members — and analysts imagine three possibilities for the use of American troops, none of them simple: occupy the Iranian oil hub of Kharg Island, participate in an operation to capture nuclear material from Iran or position themselves along the Iranian coast to break the regime’s control over the Strait of Hormuz.
“They all look below 50-50 to me at this point, but that could change,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a defense strategy expert at the Brookings Institution think tank. “Each is very risky.”
Some Trump allies, including his former envoy to Ukraine Keith Kellogg and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, have defended sending troops into Iranian territory as a necessary means of forcing Tehran to capitulate. Still, the regime has warned of even greater retaliation if the US follows through with this plan, and opposition to this idea has grown among Republicans, as well as Democrats, given the risks involved.
Among the concerns: Any American troops deployed would be ill-equipped to defend themselves on a drone-saturated battlefield fundamentally different from previous conflicts. Iran has promised massive retaliation and said it will lay naval mines across the Persian Gulf. Casualties could far exceed the 13 U.S. service members killed so far.
Continues after advertising
“I repeat: I will not support troops on the ground in Iran,” Rep. Nancy Mace, R-South Carolina, said in a social media post.
“Washington’s war machine is working at full tilt,” she wrote, adding that the administration is trying “to drag us into Iran to turn it into another Iraq. We cannot let that happen.”
Although Trump has not announced his plans, people familiar with the matter said that in recent days, the Pentagon ordered the deployment of two Marine Expeditionary Units — made up of about 5,000 troops, as well as aircraft and amphibious landing vehicles — to the region. On Tuesday, a person familiar with the matter said Trump was also sending more than 1,000 troops from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East.
Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Alabama and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said on Wednesday that a classified session on Iran did not answer lawmakers’ questions about the deployed troops.
“We want to know more about what is happening, what the options are and why they are being considered,” he told reporters. “And we’re just not getting enough answers to these questions.”
These deployments are in addition to the large number of aircraft, military personnel and ammunition that the US sent to the region before beginning its campaign against Iran on February 28. As the reinforcement continued, American officials held talks with Iran and presented the attack as a last resort after talks failed.
Continues after advertising
The situation also recalls the conflict in Afghanistan, when the US started with a limited contingent of around 3,000 troops after 9/11. The number of American troops grew rapidly and reached more than 100,000 at the height of the buildup under President Barack Obama.
Trump’s allies have urged caution over the troop deployment and have so far avoided calling it a prelude to a larger-scale ground offensive.
“Troop increases are very different from boots on the ground,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters on Wednesday. “We don’t have boots on the ground. I don’t think that’s the intention, but I think Iran should look at this build-up and need to take that into account.”
Continues after advertising
This time, Trump has repeatedly stated that the US is seeking a solution to the conflict and is now talking to the Iranians. After giving Iran 48 hours’ notice to reopen the strait — a deadline that would have expired on Monday night — Trump extended the window for another five days.
“The United States has, over the last three days, been engaged in productive conversations,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Wednesday. “You start to see the regime looking for an exit route.”
If the US chooses to take Kharg Island, the Marines would likely lead the attack. They could either conquer territory or entrench themselves, according to a former U.S. official who requested anonymity when discussing private plans. The soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division would arrive by parachute and, as they were a light infantry unit, they would have less protection capacity.
Continues after advertising
Taking Kharg, which normally accounts for 90% of Iran’s crude oil exports, would choke off Tehran’s main source of revenue, although the country has other smaller export terminals.
The moment American troops landed on the island — which is a third the size of Manhattan — would be an event highly charged with symbolism. And given the existential threat that the US would pose to Iran — including threats of regime change — this could reduce the country’s containment and trigger an escalation that would increase the number of American casualties, bring even more turmoil to energy markets, and draw even more US allies and adversaries into the conflict.
“If you go from a campaign focused on military strikes, where our comparative advantages are at their maximum, and you turn it into a ground war, then our relative comparative advantages go down — and you’re going to have more casualties,” said Bradley Bowman, a former U.S. Army officer who advised U.S. lawmakers and now serves at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Continues after advertising
In a letter released on Tuesday, Iran’s Defense Council said any invasion of Iranian territory would lead to the laying of mines throughout the Persian Gulf, not just the strait.
As Europe continues to push for a quick end to the conflict, Gulf countries have increasingly hardened their stance on Tehran after weeks of bearing the brunt of a war they did not choose but are now considering entering, according to people familiar with the matter.
In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, UAE Ambassador to the US Yousef al-Otaiba wrote that a “simple ceasefire is not enough” and called for “a conclusive outcome that confronts the full range of Iranian threats.”
“Building a fence around the problem and hoping it goes away is not the answer,” Otaiba wrote. “That would just postpone the next crisis.”
Two French officials, who requested anonymity commenting on internal discussions, said sending troops to Iran would have catastrophic consequences and lead to further escalation.
Although Trump continues to insist that the United States has the upper hand, several former members of his administration have broken ties with the president over the war. Among them is his former Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, who resigned in protest against Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria.
“There have been significant military successes, but they are not accompanied by strategic results,” Mattis said at S&P Global’s CERAWeek conference. “Now, some of the initial strategic objectives — unconditional surrender, regime change, let’s dictate who the next supreme leader will be — were clearly absurd, they were delusional.”
© 2026 Bloomberg L.P.
