When US President Donald Trump casually floated the idea of US putting “boots on the ground” in Iran, he openly defied a longstanding presidential ban. “As every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I won’t say that,” Trump declared amid ongoing US-Israeli attacks on Iran.
But while Washington’s political rhetoric hints at a wider conflict, military experts argue that the reality on the rugged Iranian terrain looks much different than a conventional invasion.
Military and strategic analyst Colonel Nidal Abu Zeid told Al Jazeera that the US was contemplating a conventional ground offensive involving tanks and massed infantry, but a different model of warfare.
‘Boots on the ground’ versus ‘pick-up’ operations
In an interview with The New York Post on Monday, Trump opened the door to the arrival of ground troops while expressing confidence in the current air campaign, dubbed “Operation Epic Fury.”
“I don’t have the yips about boots on the ground — as every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I wouldn’t say that,” Trump said after the strikes that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dozens of other officials. “I say maybe they don’t need it,’ (or) ‘if they need it’.”
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed this at a Pentagon news briefing, confirming that no US troops are currently in Iran but leaving the option on the table. “You don’t have to roll 200,000 people in there and stay for 20 years,” Hegseth said.
According to Abu Zeid, Hegseth and Trump’s comments were related to what the military calls “pick-up” or selective operations. It involves limited efforts by special forces to infiltrate specific points to execute precision sabotage or intelligence-gathering operations, followed by rapid extraction.
A conventional offensive to seize territory is not feasible, Abu Zeid said, citing Iran’s complex geopolitical environment, rugged geography and population density, all of which provide Tehran with a unique defensive advantage. He noted that Israel had previously declared ground operations in Iran impractical.
The nuclear hoax and the changing timeline
Trump revealed the decision to launch joint US-Israeli strikes after “final talks” collapsed in Geneva on Thursday. The trigger points to intelligence showing that Iran has secretly moved its nuclear enrichment program to a “completely different site.”
In June last year, Trump said US strikes dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer” had “destroyed” known Iranian nuclear facilities. “So we found them working in a completely different area, a completely different site to make a nuclear weapon through enrichment — so it was just a matter of time,” Trump said.
Trump said the operation was “ahead of schedule.” Trump, who originally estimated the war would last about four weeks, said the primary objective of eliminating the leadership structure — killing 49 top officials — had been accomplished in a single day.
However, Abu Zeid pointed out that Trump’s initial reference to a four-week timeline was not merely operational; It is subject to US domestic law. The US Constitution limits the president’s authority to go to war after 30 days without congressional approval, making the “four-week” window a critical legal and political calculation.
Missile warfare and naval campaigns
Although Iran’s command structure has taken a severe hit, Tehran continues to retaliate. According to the US military, at least six US service members were killed during the conflict with Iran.
At the same time, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed to have fired four cruise missiles at the US aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, which was located in waters close to Iran. Abu Zeid dismissed the claim as media “propaganda” designed to target the morale and prestige of the US military.
He explained that the carrier is protected by advanced RIM-116 rolling airframe missile systems, supported by a multi-layered protective umbrella as it escorts destroyers. Furthermore, US reconnaissance aircraft, particularly AWACS early warning aircraft, perform constant surveillance, making undetected missile launches highly unlikely.
About 72 hours into the standoff, Abu Zeid said a drop in Iranian missile strikes to a moderate-intensity level was observed. They attributed the crash to the destruction of Iranian launch platforms. Most estimates suggest that Iran has about 3,000 ballistic missiles that rely on only a few hundred launchers. In missile warfare, the destruction of platforms is as critical as the depletion of the missile stockpile.
Domestic pushback
Despite the military momentum, Trump faces skepticism at home. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed just 27 percent of Americans approved of the strikes, while a CNN/SSRS poll gave 41 percent approval.
Trump dismissed the statistics, saying a “silent majority” supports preemptive action to prevent “crazy people” from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and cited a 47-year history of Iranian hostility that includes the 1979 embassy hostage crisis and the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings.
Meanwhile, Abu Zeid noted that US and Israeli intelligence may have underestimated Iran’s ability to quickly repair its chain of command. By adopting the doctrine of “centralized planning and decentralized execution,” Tehran managed to absorb the initial shock and maintain its missile barrage despite heavy US electronic jamming and technological superiority.
However, the crucial question is how long Iran can sustain this strategy of “flood of fire”. As Trump boasts of completing his four-week leadership beheading in one day, the clock continues to tick for both sides. Ultimately, the next phase of this war will not be determined by tens of thousands of US boots marching on Iranian soil, but by which side will run out of time — and launch pads — first.
(tags to translate) Features
