The Pentagon is preparing for a potential extended phase of ground operations in Iran, with US officials indicating that the deployment could last for weeks. Thousands of American soldiers and Marines are being sent to the Middle East as Washington weighs a possible escalation of the conflict under President Donald Trump.
Officials said any ground engagement would stop short of a full-scale invasion. Instead, it could involve targeted raids carried out by a combination of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry units, reports The Washington Post.
The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the plans, confirmed that such strategies have been under consideration for several weeks.
They warned that these operations would place US personnel at significant risk, citing threats ranging from Iranian drones and missile strikes to ground-based attacks and improvised explosive devices.
As of Saturday, it remained uncertain whether President Trump would authorise all, part, or none of the Pentagon’s proposed plans.
The administration of Donald Trump has in recent days shifted between suggesting the war is nearing its end and warning of possible escalation.
While the president has indicated an interest in negotiating a resolution to the conflict, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday that if authorities in Tehran fail to abandon their nuclear ambitions and halt threats against the United States and its allies, Trump is “prepared to unleash hell” against them.
Responding to queries for this report, Leavitt said: “It’s the job of the Pentagon to make preparations in order to give the Commander in Chief maximum optionality. It does not mean the President has made a decision.”
Over the past month, internal discussions within the administration have explored options such as seizing Kharg Island, a major Iranian oil export hub in the Persian Gulf, and conducting raids in coastal areas near the Strait of Hormuz to locate and destroy weapons capable of targeting commercial and military vessels, officials said.
One official noted that the objectives under consideration would likely take “weeks, not months” to complete, while another estimated the timeline could stretch to “a couple of months.”
The Pentagon did not respond on Saturday to requests for comment. Speaking in the Oval Office on 20 March, Trump told reporters: “I’m not putting troops anywhere. If I were, I certainly wouldn’t tell you, but I’m not putting troops.”
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Friday in France, after meeting US allies concerned about the growing economic impact of the conflict, that it is “not going to be a prolonged conflict.”
He reiterated the administration’s position that the operation remains ahead of schedule and said the United States “can achieve all of our objectives without ground troops.”
Comments by Marco Rubio came after a report by Axios suggested that the Pentagon is preparing a “final blow” against Iran, potentially involving both ground troops and an extensive bombing campaign.
Axios and The Wall Street Journal also reported in recent days that the administration is weighing the deployment of an additional 10,000 ground forces to the Middle East to reinforce those already stationed in the region. However, The Washington Post said it could not independently verify these claims.
Over the past month, 13 US service members have been killed in action. This includes six personnel who died in a plane crash in Iraq, six killed in a drone strike on Port Shuaiba in Kuwait, and one fatality from an attack on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia.
Officials said more than 300 troops have been injured by Iranian drones and missiles in retaliatory strikes targeting US facilities across at least seven Middle Eastern countries, with at least 10 sustaining serious injuries.
Public opinion in the United States appears strongly opposed to sending combat troops into Iran, according to recent surveys.
A poll conducted jointly by Associated Press and the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago found that 62 per cent of respondents strongly oppose deploying ground forces in Iran, while only 12 per cent expressed support.
Views were more divided on the question of airstrikes targeting Iranian military positions, with 39 per cent opposing such action and 33 per cent backing it.
Amid growing public debate over a possible US move to seize Kharg Island, Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Programme at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, warned that such an operation would carry considerable risks.
Instead, he suggested it may be safer for US forces to deploy mines around the island and use it as leverage to compel Iran to remove any mines it has placed in the Strait of Hormuz.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt, a retired Army officer who has served in Iraq, Israel and Jordan.
He added that a more effective ground strategy could involve US troops moving to “clear out” Iranian coastal military installations that threaten both commercial and military shipping.
Some of these sites lie near the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial oil transit route now under increasing risk, while others are believed to be further along the coastline.
“I think it’s better to not have the troops located in any given place for a prolonged period of time,” Eisenstadt said. “Agility is part of your force protection, if they are moving and doing raids, in and out.”
In recent weeks, the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit comprising around 2,200 US sailors and Marines has been deployed to the region.
While the unit possesses strong operational capabilities for such missions, a retired senior military officer familiar with its activities noted that it faces logistical constraints, particularly regarding how long it can sustain combat operations without additional supplies.
Kharg Island remains Iran’s most strategically important territory in the Persian Gulf, a retired US military officer said, although American defence planners have also examined other Iranian islands closer to the Strait of Hormuz as possible locations for operations.
The officer noted that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an elite paramilitary unit, is expected to mount strong resistance. Fighters could also use Kharg Island’s critical oil infrastructure as part of their defensive strategy against any US assault.
Another former senior defence official familiar with US military planning said preparations for a potential ground campaign in Iran are extensive and long-standing. “We’ve looked at this. It’s been war-gamed,” the official said. “This is not last-minute planning.”
According to the official, capturing Iranian territory could deal a symbolic blow to Tehran and provide leverage in future negotiations. However, the greater difficulty would lie in safeguarding US troops once they secure such areas.
“You’ve got to provide cover for the people on Kharg Island,” the official said. “That’s the difficult task. Seizing it is not difficult. Protecting your guys once they are there is.”
Political divisions in Washington remain evident. While Democrats have largely opposed the war in Iran, Republicans aligned with Donald Trump appear divided over the prospect of deploying ground forces.
Representative Derrick Van Orden, a Republican from Wisconsin and former Navy SEAL, reiterated his opposition, telling reporters on Thursday that he has been “100 percent crystal clear from the beginning” against sending troops into Iran.
“The answer is no,” Van Orden said. “We can achieve the strategic goals that Donald Trump wants to achieve without doing that.”
Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina also voiced her stance on social media after attending a House Armed Services Committee briefing, stating: “I will not support troops on the ground in Iran.”
However, some lawmakers have urged stronger action. Senator Lindsey Graham has advocated for US forces to take control of Kharg Island. His remarks drew criticism from both Democrats and Republicans after he compared the proposal to the US capture of Iwo Jima during the Second World War, a battle in which around 6,800 American troops were killed.
“We did Iwo Jima, we can do this,” Graham said in an interview on Fox News last weekend. “My money’s always on the Marines.”
