ANALYSIS The Scenarios of a US Ground Operation in Iran: What is at Stake for Donald Trump?

The ground operation in Iran is currently both a military scenario under consideration and a subject of intense debate, in which Donald Trump's variable statements influence perceptions of the open options of his administration. At the center of the discussion are two main questions: whether the U.S. will move from an air campaign to a significant ground troop commitment and what the political, military, and humanitarian costs of such a decision would be.

In the first ten days of the war, the U.S. and Israel struck about 4,000 targets in Iran, in one of the most intense air campaigns in history, without this leading to the regime's capitulation or change. Cited analyses in the press emphasize that air wars, unaccompanied by ground troops, have historically failed to achieve such maximal objectives, which makes the pressure for "ground troops" a recurring theme. Meanwhile, the discussion about a possible reintroduction of mandatory military recruitment amplifies public anxiety, even though officials insist that, for now, such a step "is not part of the current plan."

At the same time, there is a strong nuclear dimension: the June bombings of three Iranian facilities did not eliminate the entire stock of enriched uranium, and a significant portion would be stored in Isfahan, which fuels speculation about possible planning for a ground recovery operation. Around this information, scenarios of escalation have been built, ranging from sending troops for "limited missions" to capturing strategic objectives such as the oil terminal on Kharg Island, as well as political narratives about the risks of a new "forever war." In this context marked by massive bombings, debates about mandatory military recruitment, and mixed signals from the White House, a possible ground operation in Iran becomes one of the most sensitive and speculated foreign policy themes of the moment.

Donald Trump's Statements and His Team

​Donald Trump's statements and those of his team outline an official line that seeks to maintain strategic ambiguity, keeping the option of a ground operation without openly assuming it. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt repeatedly states that sending ground troops and a possible introduction of mandatory military recruitment "are not part of the current plan," but constantly emphasizes that the president "does not rule options off the table" and wants to assess the success of the operation before deciding. In televised interventions, Leavitt directly addresses concerns related to mandatory recruitment, but formulates responses that deliberately leave room for maneuver, which fuels cycles of news and online speculation.

Trump also conveys dual messages: on one hand, he states, in an interview with the New York Post, that he is "far" from the decision to send troops to Iran and that no "decision has been made" regarding a ground operation to secure uranium from Isfahan. On the other hand, he indicates in discussions with the press that sending troops would require "a very good reason" and confirms, according to some reports, that he has shown interest in limited engagement scenarios, from recovering nuclear material to possible arrangements regarding oil production with a potential new Iranian leadership. Similar messages come from key officials: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth speaks about the willingness to go "as far as necessary" to overthrow the regime in Tehran, without excluding ground troops, while military advisors cited by the press confirm that planning for ground missions already exists.

In external terms, Trump combines this ambiguity with personal warnings addressed to the new Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, suggesting that he is "not satisfied" with him and refusing to say "what he will do," in a rhetoric of psychological pressure. At the same time, he temporarily distances himself from some of his previous threats, for example, "retreating" from the idea of sending troops to destroy the stock of uranium in the tunnels near Tehran, stating that the U.S. "is not anywhere near" such a step. The result is a declarative architecture that combines a partial calming of public opinion with maintaining credible ground military options, both for Tehran and for allies.

Domestic Reactions in the U.S.

​These messages have triggered a wave of domestic reactions, from conservative talk shows to fact-checking and criticism from former allies of Trump. On Fox News, moderators vocally express the anxieties of parents, asking whether they will "see mandatory recruitment" and American troops sent to Iran, which forces the White House to repeatedly clarify that neither sending troops nor mandatory recruitment is part of the plan at this moment.

In political terms, Republican figures such as former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene react harshly, accusing the administration of betraying the promise of "no more regime change wars" and rejecting the idea that "their sons" should be sent to fight. Their criticisms add to the debates about the legal mechanism of a possible military recruitment: analyses emphasize that reintroducing conscription would require an act of Congress and that the U.S. has not resorted to such a tool since 1973, making such a decision unlikely in the short term. Meanwhile, fact-checkers and analytical publications dismantle online rumors claiming that mandatory recruitment is "imminent," emphasizing that, for now, the discussion is more political and speculative than operational.

In the background, the war figures, where at least seven American soldiers were killed in the first ten days, repatriation ceremonies for the bodies, and images of Trump at ceremonies for fallen soldiers anchor the debate in a concrete human cost. Although the White House's communication effort seeks to project control and limitation, the fact that the public impact of the war is increasing, as the conflict prolongs, also increases the pressure on the administration to articulate more clearly the red line regarding sending ground troops.

The Ground Operation Scenario: Objectives and Risks

From official statements and reports based on military sources, a central scenario for a ground operation emerges: a large-scale mission to capture the stock of enriched uranium, especially that from the nuclear site in Isfahan. According to military and government sources, such an action would far exceed a special forces raid and would require a "significant" number of American troops, marking the first major engagement of ground forces in the war with Iran. Trump's declared objective, the "complete elimination" of Iranian nuclear capabilities, makes such a scenario perceived within the Pentagon as one of the few credible ways to achieve this goal, under conditions where bombings cannot destroy or secure all fissile material.

Another scenario being discussed involves capturing Kharg Island, the node through which about 90% of Iran's oil exports pass, described as a potential "bargaining chip" and a natural barrier for stationing American troops. Such a step, which would combine an amphibious operation with the occupation of a critical objective for the Iranian economy, would, however, be extremely vulnerable to counterattacks and would signal a clear escalation towards a war of attrition. Meanwhile, there are partial scenarios of "limited engagement" that could aim only at securing certain facilities or collaborating with a potential new Iranian leadership on oil, but such options remain speculative and conditioned by the internal political evolution of Iran.

From a military perspective, all these scenarios share three structural risks. First, a large troop contingent would be exposed not only to regular Iranian forces but also to militia networks, in difficult terrain and with long supply lines. Second, a ground commitment would undermine the initial thesis of a "rapid" campaign, suggested even by Trump, transforming the conflict into a war with unpredictable duration and costs. Any ground operation targeting nuclear or oil objectives amplifies the risk of mass civilian casualties and negative global media coverage, especially under conditions where the Pentagon has reduced institutional capacities dedicated to civilian protection.

International Law, Legitimacy, and Civilian Protection

Internationally, the legitimacy of a ground operation in Iran largely hinges on the concepts of self-defense, proportionality, and civilian protection. The air campaign already underway, with about 4,000 targets struck in the first ten days, is presented by Washington as a response to Iranian threats and attacks, but analyses draw attention to the fact that moving to ground troops would radically change the perception of proportionality.

Organizations and experts noted in the press warn that this structural change, the dismantling or reduction of capacities dedicated to civilian protection, combined with rhetoric that exalts aggression, amplifies the risk that a ground operation could lead to large-scale loss of life, affecting the U.S.'s status as a "responsible actor" in international humanitarian law. Additionally, any mission targeting nuclear or oil objectives raises environmental and critical infrastructure protection issues, areas where international standards demand maximum caution. The absence of an explicit mandate from the Security Council and the unilateral nature of the actions increase the debate about the compatibility of such an intervention with the UN Charter, even though Washington formulates its justifications in registers such as "extended self-defense" and "preventing nuclear proliferation."

Regional and Global Consequences

Regionally, moving to a ground operation would raise the stakes for neighboring states, increasing the risk of an extended conflict. Iran has already retaliated to American and Israeli strikes with missile and drone attacks against U.S. bases and allies in the Gulf, and escalation on the ground could trigger an even larger wave of attacks against military and energy infrastructure in the region. States like the United Arab Emirates, which receive defensive support, including through the deployment of Australian early warning capabilities E-7A Wedgetail and air-to-air missiles, would become even more targets of Iranian reprisals. In this context, Australia's decision to send defensive aircraft but to avoid sending ground troops to Iran illustrates the preference of some allies for limited involvement focused on air defense and the protection of their own citizens.

Within Iran, a ground operation would intersect complex dynamics: from internal opposition and Kurdish minorities to nationalist sentiments fueled by intense bombings and civilian casualties. Analyses show that current bombings have succeeded in hitting leaders and security infrastructure, but that there is still no sufficiently armed and organized internal ground force to take control of the country, not even in the scenario where the U.S. would support Kurdish groups with "extended air cover." Interviewed Kurdish leaders emphasize that they can use the regime's "moment of weakness" only if the Revolutionary Guards are sufficiently weakened, cities rise up, and then their forces can enter, which is currently not the case. Moreover, the history of relations between the Kurds and Washington, from episodes in Iraq to the abandonment of the Syrian enclave of Rojava, fuels skepticism regarding the reliability of American support, which limits the willingness of these actors to engage in an offensive that could be followed by a new "abandonment."

Globally, a ground operation in Iran would have significant economic and political implications. Energy markets, already sensitive to attacks on Iranian infrastructure and the risk to maritime routes, would react to any sign that Iranian oil exports, especially through nodes like Kharg Island, could be blocked in the long term. On the international political stage, discussions about the proportionality of American actions intensify, especially in the context of the deliberate reduction of civilian protection mechanisms within the Pentagon and serious incidents, such as the strike on a girls' school in southern Iran, resulting in approximately 170 civilian deaths. Human rights defense organizations warn that the "deprioritization" of civilian protection and aggressive rhetoric, with official messages glorifying "lethality" and minimizing caution, increase the likelihood of large-scale loss of life, which would erode the international legitimacy of the intervention.

In conclusion, Trump's public messages, combined with disclosed military planning and reactions from allies, outline a spectrum of scenarios in which a ground operation in Iran remains a real but costly option. From "surgical" missions to secure uranium to capturing strategic objectives or indirect involvement through Kurdish actors, each variant would mark a transition from a predominantly air war to one with much higher stakes in terms of troops, time, and legitimacy. For now, the administration seeks to balance the pressure for concrete results, the destruction of Iranian nuclear capability, and the weakening of the regime, with the internal political risk of a ground war and the regional consequences of an escalation that, once triggered, would be difficult to control.

*****Synthesis made with the help of a data monitoring flow provided by the media monitoring platform NewsVibe Romania. The analysis, data, and images presented have been enhanced with the help of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence tools.