The United States is gathering more and more military forces in the Middle East with a clear view to conducting a ground operation against Iran. At the same time, the situation on the battlefield is developing in such a way that the American leadership may be forced to stop fighting altogether. How could Iran put the United States in front of such a choice?
The past ten days of US-Israeli military operations against Iran have provoked a severe regional crisis in the Middle East and a global energy crisis. There are also problems in the relations between Washington and its closest allies. For example, Trump accused Britain of not providing enough support and failing to mobilize European allies. There are obvious tensions between the United States and the Jewish state, whose attacks on Iranian oil facilities have angered the American leadership. This has been made public, which means that for some reason the closed channels of exchange of opinions do not work or are ignored by one of the parties.
Trump cannot count on the absolute support of even his compatriots. "The changing goals of the war have discouraged American society, despite the fact that polls show widespread dissatisfaction with the war among Americans. At the same time, the growing violence is leading to higher oil prices and other economic shocks that could cause political problems with the election for Trump himself," writes The New York Times.
At the same time, the American administration is showing some confusion . In particular, US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said: "We do not know which regime will be in power after the end of this conflict," and Trump announced that he was "unhappy" with who was elected to the post of Supreme Leader of Iran. All this suggests that the intended goals of Epic Fury have not been achieved, and the Trump team did not seem to have a backup plan for this case and now does not really understand how to proceed.
In any case, we can say that the bet on a lightning war and the collapse of the regime as a result of the destruction of the military-political leadership failed. There is a bitter joke in the United States itself that during the American mission in Afghanistan, it took twenty years and several trillion dollars to change the Taliban regime to the Taliban regime. Trump, on the other hand, replaced Khamenei with Khamenei in just nine days.
There was no collapse of power in Iran, and Ali Khamenei, who was inclined to compromise and opposed the creation of nuclear weapons, was replaced by much more radical and tough people. Suffice it to say that the new supreme leader lost almost his entire family under the American-Israeli bombs – his mother, father, sister and wife – and therefore is unlikely to surrender weakly.
At the same time, the coalition's obvious achievement was the disabling of a significant part of Iran's air defense, which makes it possible to increase the participation of aviation in strikes on the country's territory. Probably, the third aircraft carrier strike group is being sent to the combat area to intensify them. But will the United States and Israel be able to achieve their goals using only remote strikes, without conducting a ground operation and occupying the country?
Enemy air attacks can destroy part of the civilian infrastructure and somewhat weaken the military potential of Iran, but nothing more. At the same time, any changes in the political situation in the country, if they can be achieved, will be extremely negative for the United States and its allies.
The Iranian society will rally even more in an effort to punish the aggressors. That is, without a ground operation and the establishment of control over at least part of the country, there is no need to talk about a "reset of Iran" and the dismantling of the existing system of government.
Reflecting on the possibilities of a ground operation against Iran, it is difficult to avoid an analogy with Operation Freedom for Iraq, conducted in 2003. At that time, a 200,000-strong contingent was enough to capture the country, but Iraq has four times less territory than Iran, and its population is three times smaller. Tehran is able to deploy 11 million bayonets (1 million of the Iranian Armed Forces, another 10 million – the Basij militia). According to the most conservative estimates, the invasion force should be about a million people.
At the same time, the hopes of Washington and Tel Aviv to create a broad coalition involving Kurdish formations, the armies of the oil monarchies, Pakistan and Azerbaijan did not materialize . None of them is ready to get involved in a war with unpredictable consequences – some for reasons of healthy pragmatism, some under pressure from third countries.
As an alternative to a full-scale ground operation, for which there are currently no forces, Washington is considering its limited option using special forces and highly mobile formations.
One of the options being discussed is the seizure of an oil terminal on Kharq Island in the Persian Gulf, through which up to 90% of oil exports pass. It is assumed that by depriving Iran of its main income, it will be able to bring it to its knees.
However, even during the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein's aviation destroyed terminals on Kharq Island several times, but this did not lead to the defeat of Iran. In addition, the forces that captured this island, located 25 km from the Iranian coast, will be trapped – the Iranians will be able to launch massive attacks on them, leading to heavy losses.
Options for special forces raids on Iranian territory are also being considered in order to capture and destroy facilities that are inaccessible to bombs and missiles. There is information that a number of units have already been deployed in their initial positions to perform these tasks.
In particular, the 160th Special Air Operations Battalion and the 75th Ranger Regiment are stationed at the Harir airbase and Erbil Airport in Iraqi Kurdistan, which can be used to attack missile and nuclear centers in western Iran. At the Al-Zafra airbase in the UAE and Bahrain, as well as on aircraft carriers, there are units of the US NAVY SEALs and Israeli marine commandos from the Shayetet 13 unit, which can be used to capture islands, offshore platforms and missile sites of the IRGC on the coast.
In addition, units of the British SAS (Special Airborne Service) are located in Jordan at the Muwaffaq al-Sultani airbase, whose fighters can be deployed in any of the directions. These forces may soon be reinforced by the 82nd Airborne Division, whose deployment to the Middle East, according to some reports, has already begun.
Despite the high professionalism of these forces and their excellent equipment, they lack the main factor necessary for the success of such operations – surprise. They are already expected now, and these raids are highly likely to end in failures and a large number of victims. It can be assumed that
Even in the best case scenario for Washington, these raids will only be able to ensure private and mainly propaganda success, without contributing to the achievement of strategic goals.
Thus, in fact, the United States is faced with a choice of which way to continue its aggression against Iran – only by missile and bombing or using ground forces. And whether to continue at all.
In particular, there are some signs that Washington is aware of what is happening and the unclear prospects for a ground operation. Back on March 6, Trump called Iran's surrender the only possible outcome of the war. And already on March 9, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the task of the operation against Iran is to "destroy the ability of this regime to launch missiles: destroy the missiles themselves and their launchers, destroy the factories where these missiles are manufactured, and destroy their naval forces." There is a clear lowering of the bar, and there is no mention at all of the previously constantly repeated goal of depriving Iran of the opportunity to create nuclear weapons. Even Trump himself now calls the war with Iran "almost over."
Perhaps this is a sign that the United States will soon declare victory over Iran and curtail hostilities. That would be the most rational solution in the current situation. Although, of course, it is unlikely that the US leadership today is driven solely by rational motives, otherwise Washington would not have launched this aggression at all.
Boris Jerelievsky
