The US and Israel's military strikes against Iran entered their fourth day on the 3rd, with Iran continuing to retaliate against Israeli and US military targets in the Middle East, escalating tensions and spreading the conflict to multiple regional countries.
From currently available public information, US and Israeli strikes on Iran have mainly consisted of air raids, accompanied by cyberattacks and other operations. However, regarding whether ground troops will be sent to Iran, US President Trump and Secretary of War Hegseth have not explicitly ruled out this option, sparking speculation and concern.
Ambiguous Statements to "Leave Room"?
At a Pentagon press conference on the 2nd, Hegseth stated that there are currently no US ground troops inside Iran, but he would not discuss any actions the US “will or will not take.”
Trump told the media on the same day that the US would deploy ground troops "only if necessary," but did not clarify what would constitute “necessity.”
However, US Secretary of State Rubio said on the 2nd that the US can achieve its military objectives in Iran without deploying ground troops.
Some US media interpret the ambiguous and somewhat contradictory statements from US officials as an indication that the Trump administration is intentionally leaving room in its decision-making for possible future ground actions, while also reflecting serious concerns over the issue.
What Factors Influence the Decision?
Analysts believe there is a possibility of small-scale US ground operations inside Iran, but a large-scale invasion is relatively unlikely.
Under certain circumstances, there is a possibility that US forces may carry out ground missions inside Iran. For example, if a US aircraft is shot down and the pilot ejects and lands in Iran, US forces may organize a cross-border rescue mission. In addition, small-scale special forces may be deployed to infiltrate Iran for intelligence gathering or to destroy high-value targets that cannot be hit by airstrikes. Such actions are generally short in duration, limited in scope, and considered tactical-level limited intervention.
Given the current situation, at least for some time, the likelihood of the US launching a large-scale ground operation is low. There are at least four factors affecting the US decision to send in ground troops.
First, in terms of policy objectives, the current focus of US military strikes against Iran is to dismantle Iran’s political leadership and military command chains, target its nuclear program, weaken its missile capabilities, and incite the Iranian public to "lead the way" to regime change. According to the Trump administration’s assessment, large-scale airstrikes can mostly achieve these goals, without the need to replicate the "nation-building" models of long-term occupation and "American-style democratization" seen in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Second, in terms of current operations, the US and Israeli advantage lies in precision strikes under air superiority, rather than large-scale ground advances. Iran’s terrain is mostly mountainous plateau; if invaded on the ground, the US would need massive logistical support and would likely incur heavy casualties in mountain and urban warfare. According to an analysis from the Brookings Institution, which reviewed multiple past US overseas military actions, joint air and ground campaigns often consume more resources and create more chaos.
Third, as for domestic politics, after twenty years of "endless wars" in the 21st century, US public support for long-term, large-scale overseas wars is extremely low. The Bush and Obama administrations mired the US in Middle East wars, which is a core argument for Trump against previous administrations, and a basic consensus among his "Make America Great Again" base. Large-scale ground action would mean higher risks of casualties and longer-term resource drain, and if the war drags on, it would seriously undermine Trump’s domestic and intra-party support.
Fourth, from the perspective of US national security strategy, the Trump administration proposed "Western Hemisphere First" and clearly aims to reduce the Middle East’s status in US security priorities. In this context, devoting significant ground forces and strategic resources to Iran does not align with the shift in US global strategic focus and would be difficult for US strategists to accept.
Spatafora, a researcher at the EU Institute for Security Studies, believes that the Trump administration is more likely to choose a "low-cost" path in military action against Iran—avoiding the direct deployment of ground troops, seeking to identify internal political forces in Iran that are willing to cooperate with US policy, and cultivating or influencing these forces to shape a power structure in Iran favorable to the US.