Why boots on the ground is coming - CaspianReport

[TexasTowelie]

The following summary is AI-generated.

- Air strikes alone haven’t changed Iran’s course, prompting discussions in Washington about potential ground operations, though actual deployment remains politically and militarily complex.

- Special operations (e.g., Navy SEALs, Delta Force) are the most likely initial step — low-profile, flexible, and politically shielded — targeting nuclear sites, sabotage, or leadership, but carry high risk and limited strategic impact.

- Limited territorial seizures, especially of strategic islands near the Strait of Hormuz (like Abu Musa or Kish), could disrupt Iran’s oil exports and maritime control, with Marines positioned for such missions.

- Amphibious assaults are extremely risky due to Iran’s coastal defenses, drones, and terrain — the U.S. hasn’t conducted a contested landing since the Korean War.

- Full-scale invasion is highly unlikely due to Iran’s size, terrain, lack of regional support, and political/funding hurdles — it would require hundreds of thousands of troops and years to stabilize.

- Post-conflict occupation would be a long-term burden, draining U.S. resources and potentially emboldening rivals in other theaters like Europe or Asia.

[Moostache]

1. Hmmm... what could POSSIBLY go wrong?

The VC would not be a major issue...
Iraqis will greet us as liberators and saviors...
Afghanistan is just waiting for us to provide them democracy...

This god awful play should have NEVER happened at all, let alone be getting a 4th revival in the last 60 years.

[stopdiggin]

2. all of which is to say - anybody with any REAL understanding of the situation

(either inside or outside military command) - is saying, "Fool's errand."
There is no winning to be achieved here. And 'boots on the ground' will not alter that basic equation.