US troops in Iran? Trump confronts most dangerous military decision yet

President Donald Trump is confronting perhaps the most difficult decision of his war in Iran: whether to send American ground forces into the country, a move that could define his legacy and reshape the trajectory of the conflict, CNN reports.

Since US strikes began on February 28, Trump has reviewed military options in near-daily briefings with top officials at the White House.

While the president has publicly downplayed the likelihood of deploying troops, he has not ruled it out. “I’m not putting troops anywhere,” Trump said last Thursday. “If I were, I certainly wouldn’t tell you.”

The stakes are high. Trump’s allies warn that sending thousands of US troops to the Middle East could erode domestic support for the war and imperil the administration’s ability to secure hundreds of billions of dollars in supplemental funding. Yet some officials argue that fully achieving military objectives and mitigating the war’s broader fallout may require boots on the ground.

Administration officials have accelerated the deployment of Marine and naval units to the region, including the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit and Boxer Amphibious Ready Group. Options under consideration range from capturing Iran’s Kharg Island — a critical hub for the country’s crude exports — to seizing buried enriched uranium or targeting Iran’s remaining nuclear infrastructure.

Both operations would require substantial ground involvement and carry significant risks, including potential contamination from Iran’s nuclear materials.

While US and Israeli forces have succeeded in degrading Iran’s missile, drone, and naval capabilities, the country’s nuclear expertise remains intact. Tehran continues to possess highly enriched uranium, and its scientists retain the knowledge necessary to pursue future nuclear programmes.

“The fundamental advantage Iran has is that knowledge can’t be bombed away,” said a European diplomat.

Differences in strategy between the US and Israel further complicate the conflict. Trump’s timeline for concluding operations is short, driven by domestic political pressures and the upcoming midterm elections, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pursues a longer-term campaign aimed at weakening Iran’s leadership and financial lifelines.

US officials have expressed concern that a sudden end to hostilities could leave Iran’s nuclear capabilities largely intact, prompting accelerated development once the war concludes.

Republican lawmakers are also divided. Some encourage Trump to declare victory once military objectives outlined by the Joint Chiefs, such as destroying Iran’s navy and missile arsenals, are accomplished. Others warn that escalating the conflict with ground operations could trigger an open-ended war and further casualties.

The economic fallout has added urgency to decision-making. Iran’s threats to close the Strait of Hormuz have caused global jitters, highlighting the geopolitical and financial risks of prolonged military engagement. Trump has also expressed frustration with media coverage that he believes exaggerates the costs of the war, as well as with NATO allies whom he views as insufficiently committed to supporting regional security.

As Trump weighs his options, the fundamental question remains: how to achieve US objectives without escalating the conflict into a protracted war, while navigating domestic political pressures and the divergent ambitions of allies. With thousands of US troops now en route to the Middle East, the next phase of the war — and the president’s decision on whether to commit them to combat — could arrive at any moment.

By Aghakazim Guliyev