Even as Donald Trump pressures for negotiations to end the war with Iran, the United States ordered the deployment of thousands of troops to the region, fueling fears that the president is preparing exactly for the kind of risky ground invasion he campaigned against in the past.
The Islamic Republic publicly rejected Trump’s diplomatic overture and threatened massive retaliation if the U.S. places troops on Iranian soil in an attempt to break Tehran’s will. For a president who criticized the so-called “eternal wars” of his predecessors, these escalation scenarios bring the prospect of heavy casualties.
Military officials — current and former — and analysts envision three possibilities for the use of American troops, none of them simple: to occupy the Iranian oil hub on Kharg Island, to participate in an operation to seize Iran’s nuclear material, or to position along the Iranian coast to break the regime’s control of the Strait of Hormuz.
“All of them seem less than 50-50 at the moment, but that could change,” said Michael O’Hanlon, defense strategy expert at the Brookings Institution. “Each one is very risky.”
Some of Trump’s allies, including his former envoy to Ukraine Keith Kellogg and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, argued for deploying troops into Iranian territory as a necessary means to force Tehran to capitulate. Still, the regime warned of even greater retaliation if the U.S. proceeds with this plan, and opposition to the idea grew among both Republicans and Democrats, given the risks involved.
Among the concerns: any American troops sent would be ill-equipped to defend themselves in a battlefield saturated with drones, fundamentally different from earlier conflicts. Iran promised massive retaliation and said it would place naval mines throughout the Persian Gulf. Casualties could far exceed the 13 American service members killed so far.
“I repeat: I will not support troops on the ground in Iran,” said Rep. Nancy Mace, a Republican from South Carolina, in a post on social media.
“The Washington war machine is operating at full speed,” 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 — composed of about 5,000 service members, in addition to aircraft and amphibious assault vehicles — to the region. On Tuesday, a person in the know said that Trump was also sending more than 1,000 troops from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East.
Representative Mike Rogers, Republican from Alabama and chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said on Wednesday that a closed-door briefing on Iran did not answer lawmakers’ questions about the mobilized 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 simply aren’t getting enough answers to those questions.”
These deployments add to the large number of aircraft, troops and munitions that the United States had sent to the region before starting its campaign against Iran on February 28. As the reinforcement continued, American officials were maintaining negotiations with Iran and presenting the attack as a last resort after talks failed.
The situation also recalls the Afghanistan conflict, when the U.S. began with a limited contingent of about 3,000 troops after 9/11. The number of American troops quickly grew and reached over 100,000 at the height of the surge under President Barack Obama.
Trump’s allies urged caution regarding deploying troops and, so far, have avoided labeling it as a prelude to a larger-scale ground offensive.
“The increase in troop numbers is very different from boots on the ground,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters on Wednesday. “We do not have boots on the ground. I don’t think that’s the intention, but I think Iran should observe this reinforcement and take it into account.”
This time, Trump repeatedly stated that the U.S. seeks a solution to the conflict and that they are now talking with the Iranians. After giving Iran a 48-hour notice to reopen the strait — a deadline that would have expired on Monday night — Trump extended the window by five more days.
“The United States has been participating, in the last three days, in productive talks,” said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt to reporters on Wednesday. “You’re starting to see the regime seek a way out.”
If the U.S. chooses to seize Kharg Island, the Marines would likely lead the assault. They could either conquer the territory or entrench themselves, according to a former U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity about private plans. Meanwhile the soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division would parachute in and, being a light infantry unit, would have less protective capability.
Seizing Kharg, which normally accounts for about 90% of Iran’s crude oil exports, would choke Tehran’s main revenue source, though the country has other smaller export terminals.
The moment American troops would land on the island — which is about one-third the size of Manhattan — would be a highly symbolic event. And, given the existential threat that the United States would pose to Iran — including regime-change threats — this could lower Tehran’s restraint and trigger an escalation that would raise American casualties, bring further volatility to energy markets, and involve even more U.S. allies and adversaries in the conflict.
“If you move from a campaign focused on military strikes, where our comparative advantages are at their peak, to a ground war, our relative advantages diminish — and you will have more casualties,” said Bradley Bowman, a former U.S. Army officer who advised American lawmakers and now works at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
In a letter released on Tuesday, Iran’s Defense Council stated that any invasion of Iranian territory would lead to the installation of mines throughout the Persian Gulf, not only in the Strait.
As Europe continues pressing for a quick end to the conflict, Gulf countries have been hardening their stance toward Tehran after weeks of bearing the weight of a war they did not choose, but in which they now consider entering, according to people familiar with the matter.
In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the U.S., Yousef al-Otaiba, wrote that a “simple cease-fire is not enough” and urged “a conclusive outcome that addresses the full range of Iranian threats.”
“Building a fence around the problem and hoping it will disappear is not the answer,” wrote Otaiba. “That would only delay the next crisis.”
Two French officials, who asked to remain anonymous when commenting on internal discussions, said that deploying troops to Iran would have catastrophic consequences and would lead to an even greater escalation.
Although Trump continues to insist that the U.S. has the advantage, several former members of his administration have broken with the president over the war. Among them is his former Defense Secretary, James Mattis, who resigned in protest of Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria.
“There have been significant military successes, but they are not matched by strategic outcomes,” Mattis said at the S&P Global’s CERAWeek conference. “Now, some of the initial strategic objectives — unconditional surrender, regime change, we will dictate who will be the next supreme leader — were clearly absurd, they were delusional.”
© 2026 Bloomberg L.P.
