Will United States dare to send ground troops into Iran?

Birds fly as smoke rises following an explosion after Israel and the United States launched strikes on Iran in Tehran. (Photo: Reuters)

New Delhi: Four days have passed since open warfare began between the United States-Israel and Iran. Airstrikes continue on both sides even after confirmation of the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The battlefield is active with an unclear political endgame.

As the war intensifies, Washington’s ultimate goal is unclear in what is emerging as one of the most consequential US military operations in the Middle East in two decades. President Donald Trump has alternated between different visions of victory and exit, while senior officials of have sent conflicting messages about the administration’s priorities. The absence of a single and defined objective is fuelling questions about the direction of the war.

The United States has not clearly stated whether regime change in Tehran forms part of its final objective. At the outset, officials said the focus lay on degrading Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. In the hours and days that followed, presidential messaging moved in several directions.

Add Zee News as a Preferred Source

At times, the emphasis fell on limited military goals. At other moments, the language hinted at broader political change inside Iran.

Trump does not rule out ground troops

In a statement on Monday, President Trump said Iran’s expanding long-range missile programme and nuclear ambitions posed a threat not only to the Middle East but also to the American people. He declined to close the door on sending US ground forces into Iran. In an interview, he said past presidents had promised not to deploy troops on Iranian soil. He indicated that he would not make such a promise and suggested ground forces might not be necessary. He also suggested they could be used if required.

Defence analysts consider a large-scale ground invasion unlikely. Defence analyst Pravin Sawhney assessed that the probability of American troops landing in Iran under present conditions is extremely low. He said Washington’s ultimate objective still lacks clarity.

He said launching airstrikes showed one level of engagement and argued that deploying ground forces would pose immense military and political challenges.

Sawhney pointed to Iran’s vast territory and complex geography as major obstacles. Referring to signs of national unity within Iran after the attacks, he said these factors would complicate any external military advance.

The United States and Israel have already committed major military assets to air operations. Heavy strikes continue over Tehran and other regions.

Sawhney said defeating Iran completely would not be easy.

Lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan

Former US European Command Deputy Commander General Charles Wald has assessed the likelihood of a full ground invasion as very small. In an article published in February 2026, he wrote that he did not expect the United States to send troops into Iran in pursuit of regime change. He argued that American air and naval superiority is substantial.

He also referred to the reluctance within US politics toward launching another prolonged ground war in the Middle East after Iraq and Afghanistan.

Strategic analyst James Jay Carafano from the Heritage Foundation previously warned that a full invasion of Iran would be far more complicated than Iraq in 2003.

In an earlier assessment, he wrote that a complete invasion would prove extremely complex. He stated that Iranian forces might eventually be defeated but warned that US forces would face heavy strain. He predicted the mission could evolve into an uncertain and costly long-term presence.

More complex ground realities

Sawhney believes the ground situation in Iran today presents even greater complexity than wars two decades ago. He points to Iran’s size, mountainous terrain, large population and entrenched military institutions as serious barriers for any foreign army.

In 2003, the United States entered Iraq with British support. In the present war, the United Kingdom has declined direct military involvement against Iran. American ground forces withdrew from Iraq in 2011 after years of combat. More than 4,500 US service members lost their lives in that campaign. Tens of thousands were wounded. The political and social impact continues to resonate in the United States.

Long-term American objectives in Iran is unclear. Some analysts warn that if the mission expands beyond targeted strikes toward regime change and occupation, defence spending would rise over time.

Sawhney says the financial burden could become severe and adds that achieving a decisive military victory over Iran would be extremely difficult.

Shortly before the latest strikes, Nat Swanson of the Atlantic Council, a former director for Iran at the US National Security Council, cautioned that limited air operations could gradually draw the United States into deeper involvement. He wrote that sending ground troops or pursuing regime change might appear unlikely at first glance. He warned that evolving conditions could push policy in that direction.

Swanson added that if change in objectives from damaging military facilities to complete regime change, Iranian retaliation and regional instability could trap the United States in a prolonged and exhausting war.

Iran has responded forcefully to the joint US-Israeli strikes. It has launched missiles at American military positions in the region. It is also firing toward Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Swanson observed that Iran’s military structure has suffered damage but has not been rendered inactive. He warned that any ground war could trigger widespread resistance and insurgency.

Sawhney sees signs of national cohesion inside Iran following the supreme leader’s death. He believes that deploying US ground troops in this climate would carry grave military and political risks.

He also points to Hezbollah in Lebanon and adds that the group has faced pressure in recent years. He says it retains the ability to open another front. Hezbollah has fired rockets and missiles at Israel. Tel Aviv responded with strikes on Beirut and other areas. Israeli officials claim several Hezbollah commanders have been targeted.

Iran’s aggressive response

Several analysts argue that equal attention must be paid to Iran’s strategic aims. Sawhney says the scale of Iran’s retaliation suggests goals that extend beyond self-defence. He indicates that Tehran may seek to push American military presence away from the Middle East.

Such an assessment carries broad implications. The war appears to move beyond a direct confrontation between two states. Regional power balances could change in the process.

The question now revolves around President Trump’s ultimate objectives. Future US strategy will depend heavily on how those goals are defined.

Military history offers few examples of regime change achieved solely through air power against a large and resilient state. In 2003, the United States and its allies launched intense aerial bombardment in Iraq. Iraqi forces suffered heavy damage. American ground troops entered the country. A prolonged ground conflict followed and lasted for years.

As airstrikes continue over Iran, the debate in Washington grows louder. The prospect of boots on the ground is uncertain. The consequences of such a move would change the region for years to come.