What does it mean for the USA to “win” a war in the 21st century? Under George W Bush, a coalition led by American troops launched the first “shock and awe” strikes against Iraq on 20 March, 2003. By 9 April US soldiers had taken Baghdad, and the historical shots of the toppling of the statute of Saddam Hussein were taken. By 1 May, Bush declared “mission accomplished”.
Just 20 days passed between the USA’s first strikes on Iraq in 2003 and the fall of Baghdad. Donald Trump launched his first strikes against Iran 30 days ago, and while the previous supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is dead, Trump has little else to show for it.
Bush took control of Iraq within three weeks – and easily won re-election a year afterwards – but that invasion is widely regarded across the political spectrum in America as a disaster, both politically and morally. Americans’ disgust and fatigue at endless overseas military deployments were part of what propelled Trump into power.
So far, Trump has stuck to aerial strikes when it comes to Iran, but his rhetoric is building towards something more dramatic. An additional 2,500 Marines and 2,500 sailors have already been sent to the region, bringing the total number of US troops in the Middle East to around 50,000 – 10,000 more than usual. Trump has said he is “not afraid of anything” when asked about putting boots on the ground in Iran, even when the questioner asked if he was worried this could lead to a quagmire like Vietnam.
The realities of a land war in Iran are daunting. The 2003 Iraq conflict was extensively planned, even if the strategy for what to do afterwards wasn’t. The USA had the enthusiastic support of neighbouring countries to stage its troops there and prepare them for a land invasion. The objective – regime change – was clear, and hundreds of thousands of troops were in place.
Then US president George W Bush on 1 May, 2003 declaring the end of major combat operations in Iraq (Photo: Stephen Jaffe/AFP)None of this is true of Trump in Iran. More than half of Iran’s terrain is mountainous, and virtually impossible for ground troops to traverse in serious numbers. None of Iran’s neighbours are willing to help facilitate a major ground invasion. There is still nothing approaching a clear goal that this war is supposed to achieve – other than perhaps clearing up the mess caused by this conflict itself. If Trump wanted to launch a full-scale invasion of Iran, it would likely require hundreds of thousands of troops, probably via the largest amphibious landing operation since the Second World War.
Trump does not seem to be suggesting that at this stage. But just because his other options are smaller doesn’t make them any less risky. There are three plans being aired in the media. One is to seize Kharg Island, the port from which around 90 per cent of Iran’s oil and gas exports depart, and use it as leverage to negotiate a peace deal.
Kharg Island is the most vital node of the Iranian oil industry with 90 per cent of fuel flowing throwing its terminals (Photo: European Space Agency/AFP)But this requires US troops to take and hold an island in easy missile and drone distance of Iran, while sitting on a piece of land that is essentially one large bomb, and hoping that the regime in Tehran will prioritise its economy over its desire to beat America. That’s an incredibly risky bet.
Option two is to try to seize islands in the Strait of Hormuz itself and force the reopening of the waterway – but this once again puts US troops in easy range of missiles and small boat terror attacks. A third plan involves sending troops to seize the highly enriched uranium from Iran’s nuclear sites – the kind of daring, movie-like special forces operation that appeals to Trump, but an incredibly risky one that doesn’t do anything obvious to end the war.
Let’s be clear: in simple military terms, the USA will always “win” a conflict with Iran. It will be able to kill more people and do more damage than it receives in return. The problem is that Americans expect a “win” to look much more decisive than that. They expect very little cost on the American side, and for some tangible benefit to have resulted from the action. Trump has no story to tell on this front.
Once American boots are on the ground, that story becomes even more important. Once US soldiers have taken fire – and especially if some die – it becomes vital that their sacrifice has meaning, that it wasn’t “for nothing”. Right now, Trump could walk away from Iran claiming victory, leaving the Strait of Hormuz to be someone else’s problem, and ignore anyone saying it wasn’t a triumph as a “hater” or a “loser”.
That changes if Trump doubles down and sends in troops. Then, Trump needs to be able to show why they had to be there, and what it achieved. President after president has found out the hard way that it’s a lot easier to send troops into a foreign country than it is to get them out.
Trump risks making the exact same mistake his predecessors did. It could cost him just as dearly as it cost them. Without the love of his Maga base, what does he have left?
Hence then, the article about trump s messy ground operation will be the straw that breaks maga was published today ( ) and is available on inews ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Trump’s messy ground operation will be the straw that breaks Maga )
Also on site :
- Rooster Runs Wild: Director Zach Braff Breaks Down Greg's Night Out In Episode 4 — And Working With John C. McGinley Across Two Shows
- Iranian academic describes US-Israeli attacks on Iran’s universities
- Meet the ex-Google CMO who quit with a seven-figure package by 28—he says getting promoted was easy because he just ‘disregarded all the rules’