Trump at a Crossroads on Iran: Will He or Won’t He Send in Troops?

…

Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said that there are “real reasons to think ground operations could end up taking place.” He said that Iran “refuses to entertain Trump’s demands,” which could compel the administration to use elevated means of force in order to seize Iran’s highly enriched uranium, reopen the Strait of Hormuz or take Kharg Island “or other assets as bargaining chips.”

“The past month reaffirms that standoff air and naval power are insufficient by themselves to neutralize these targets or convince Iran to give them up,” Ruhe said. “Trump’s tendency is to employ the forces that he deploys overseas, as seen in both the Venezuela operation and the start of the current conflict. And there’s an opportunity cost to letting such well-trained U.S. forces idle indefinitely in the Middle East after pulling them from the Indo-Pacific or the homeland.”

…

Ruhe noted that Trump could be overlooking the potential costs of ground operations. He said that the president “has not adequately anticipated Iran’s retaliation” and is “discounting the uncertainties and risks of rolling the iron dice with ground operations.”

“And even if Trump is clear-eyed about the risks, he may accept them because getting the highly enriched uranium [HEU] and reopening the strait are such important goals,” he continued. Ruhe noted that such operations would likely be very complex.

“Seizing Iran’s HEU at Isfahan, Kharg Island or beachheads along the strait would be larger and more open-ended than raids on Maduro, al-Baghdadi or Bin Laden, which were in-and-out and occurred in much more tactically permissive environments,” Ruhe said. “Though Iran is being hit hard, it still has much greater military capabilities than ISIS, Venezuela or the Taliban.”

…