The war in Iran is escalating more and more. Just today (March 19), the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran released a major news: they launched the 64th wave of the so-called "True Promise-4" operation, targeting central and northern Israel, including key locations such as Ben-Gurion Airport and Haifa. What's more eye-catching is that the announcement explicitly states that the U.S. Fifth Fleet has been hit.
What does this mean? The Fifth Fleet is the backbone of the U.S. military in the Middle East, with aircraft carrier battle groups at its core. If it is indeed hit, even if it's just damage to a destroyer-level vessel, the impact on the U.S. deterrent power would be devastating. Coupled with the previous news about the "Lincoln" leaving the Middle East, the air superiority of the U.S.-Israel alliance is gradually being eroded.
Iran has launched 64 waves of missile attacks. What does this indicate? It shows that their stockpiles are sufficient and their launch capabilities are sustainable. Meanwhile, the U.S.-Israel air defense systems, from "Iron Dome" to "Thaad," are seeing their interception rates decline. Even the most advanced air defense missiles cannot withstand saturation attacks.
What will Trump do next, especially that most sensitive issue: whether the U.S. ground forces should, would, or dare to step into Iran?
1. Latest Battlefield Situation: Iran's "Sustained Counterattack" Puzzles the U.S. and Israel
First, look at Iran's side. Setting aside propaganda elements, the ability to continuously launch dozens of strikes and openly claim to strike the U.S. fleet indicates at least a few points:
- The counterattack system is still operational: After suffering preemptive strikes, Iran's missile, drone production and launch capabilities have not been paralyzed. Its "swarm" saturation attack strategy continues to put pressure on U.S. air defenses.
- Target selection has upgraded: From attacking military bases to targeting international airports, port cities, and even claiming to strike the U.S. fleet, Iran is testing and expanding its range of retaliation, increasing the level of conflict, and raising the defense costs and public panic for the U.S. and Israel.
- Psychological warfare and propaganda: The statement that the Fifth Fleet was hit, regardless of the actual damage, carries significant psychological deterrence and international public opinion effects. It aims to shake the confidence of the U.S. regional deployment and demonstrate its ability to withstand attacks to the domestic population and the "resistance axis."
In short, the U.S. and Israel failed to achieve a quick victory, and Iran was not knocked out in one blow. Both sides have entered a cruel attrition war and a phase of escalation of deterrence.
2. Trump's "Choice Question": Three Options, Each More Problematic
Facing the stalemate, the Trump administration clearly can't sit still. According to reports by Reuters and other media, the Trump administration is now in chaos internally; thousands of additional U.S. troops are being debated, with three options laid on the table, each more radical than the last.
Option A: Ensure the Strait of Hormuz remains open. This is the most basic and relatively "mild" option. Send more naval forces, and possibly deploy troops along the Iranian coast to ensure the freedom of navigation through this global oil artery. However, this means an immediate confrontation risk with the Iranian navy and coastal anti-ship forces.
Option B: Occupy Khark Island. This is a "kingmaker" idea. Khark Island handles 90% of Iran's oil exports, it's the economic lifeline of Iran. Occupying it would theoretically choke Iran's throat. But the risks are extremely high. The island has strong defenses, and Iran will surely retaliate with all its might, leading to a brutal island siege, unpredictable casualties, and a complete transformation of the war into a full-scale occupation, with disastrous political consequences.
Option C: Special operations to seize highly enriched uranium. This sounds like a Hollywood script. The goal is to eliminate the so-called "nuclear threat," but executing it is extremely difficult. Iran's nuclear facilities are deeply buried and heavily fortified, making the success rate of special forces' operations extremely low. If it fails or if the operatives are captured, it would be a huge military and political scandal.
All these options point to a common point: they may require the deployment of ground forces, at least a significant increase in ground military presence. This leads to the core question.
3. Soul-Searching: Should Ground Forces Be Deployed?
Regarding the deployment of ground forces, we can look at it from three levels:
Should we deploy them? From a purely military perspective, to completely destroy Iran's military resistance capability, control key facilities or territories, air strikes and long-range attacks alone are far from enough. Historically, to deal with a country like Iran, which has depth, complex terrain, and a strong will to resist, without the involvement of ground forces, it is difficult to achieve a decisive result. Therefore, some military figures or hardliners may believe that "we should."
Will we deploy them? This depends on Trump's decision-making scale. On one hand is the pressure for a military solution, on the other hand is the heavy political burden. T
Trump once vowed during his campaign to "end endless wars." Now, if he were to send large numbers of ground forces into another ground war in the Middle East, it would be a betrayal of his core promise, potentially severely impacting his domestic base. An anonymous White House official said "no decision has been made yet," reflecting this extreme dilemma. Therefore, "whether to deploy" is filled with great uncertainty.
Do we dare to deploy them? That's the most critical point. The answer is likely "not easily deploy." There are four reasons——
- Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan: Iran has stronger military power, more complex terrain, higher national cohesion, and a vast missile arsenal and proxy network, which could trap U.S. forces in a real "war quagmire."
- High expected casualties: Once ground combat begins, the number of U.S. casualties will no longer be a secret, and domestic anti-war sentiment will quickly ignite. For any U.S. president, this is an unbearable burden.
- Risk of regional war escalation: A ground invasion may force Iran to use all means, including attacking more extensive U.S. bases, inciting proxies to carry out comprehensive attacks, and even blockading the strait, spreading the fire throughout the region.
- International isolation and ally disunity: Besides Israel, there are very few important allies who would support a U.S. ground invasion of Iran. This would lead to extreme diplomatic isolation for the United States.
4. Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Trump's Dilemma and the World's Concerns
The Trump administration is now in a classic "caught between a rock and a hard place" situation.
Advancing is difficult. Military escalation, especially deploying ground forces, comes with high costs and huge risks, facing heavy domestic and international resistance, and could be a political suicide.
Retreating is also difficult. If they stop now or limit themselves to limited air strikes, they won't achieve their declared goal of "making Iran surrender," which could be seen as weak by domestic hardliners and Israel, damaging their "strongman" image, and may make Iran bolder.
This dilemma is exactly what Iran's "prolonged war" and "asymmetric counterattack" strategies hope to see. They don't need to defeat the U.S. military on the front lines, only to make the U.S. feel that "it's not worth it" and "the cost is too high," which can achieve strategic goals.
Iran's latest attacks and discussions about U.S. troop increases mark the conflict sliding into a more dangerous and unpredictable abyss. Trump holds the option of increasing troops, but each one is like a hot potato. Ground forces, the ultimate military tool, due to the terrifying political and human costs behind it, may remain locked in the decision-making cage and not be released easily. This war is turning into a cruel game of who blinks first and who can't bear the cost. And the world is watching nervously, wondering where this gamble will end.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/7618979814279578147/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.