Dave Patterson: Is Putting Troops on the Ground in Iran a Good Idea?

As the conflict in Iran continues, a debate is ongoing as to whether the US should put combat troops on the ground in Iran. Naysayers claim such an escalation is unnecessary and puts ground forces at risk. Those who favor the action are as resolute that without soldiers occupying Iranian real estate, there is no winning. Both positions are at opposite poles of the argument. Those against envision an invasion force storming the beaches and airdropping from the skies with enormous casualties. Those in favor believe that there is no opportunity to bring the Tehran government to submission without significant US forces on the ground. Neither position is necessarily right.

Iran Is Prolonging the Conflict

While President Donald Trump’s negotiating team is busy attempting to get Iran to be serious about ending the war, alternatives for speeding up the process are under consideration. One of those alternatives is to put US ground forces in Iran. Though talks are ongoing with Iran to stop the fighting, there is little evidence of real progress. Bombing of military facilities, Iranian security forces’ installations, ballistic missiles, drones, and cruise-missile warehouses and production factories continues. What has changed is that President Trump has extended an olive branch amid the US and Israeli air attacks. In a Truth Social post, Trump explained: “As per Iranian Government request, please let this statement serve to represent that I am pausing the period of Energy Plant destruction by 10 Days to Monday, April 6, 2026, at 8 P.M., Eastern Time. Talks are ongoing and, despite erroneous statements to the contrary by the Fake News Media and others, they are going very well.” Trump’s offer may not be the incentive he hopes for, and a stronger inducement might be necessary.

Trump has been cagey in his intentions regarding putting ground troops in Iran. A New York Post article explained, “President Trump told The Post Monday that he’s not ruling out sending US ground troops into Iran “if they were necessary” — adding that Operation Epic Fury was “way ahead of schedule” after taking out dozens of Tehran’s top officials. The president then told The Post that he doesn’t say “there will be no boots on the ground.” Instead, he is less specific, asserting that we “probably don’t need them” or he explains “if they were necessary,” leaving unsaid, “I’m not ruling out the use of troops on the ground.”

To that end, the US is building a significant ground force contingent in the region. According to Military Times:

“Elements from the 82nd Airborne Division headquarters and a brigade combat team will deploy to the Middle East, the Pentagon confirmed in a statement Wednesday…The 82nd Airborne Division, based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, serves as the Army’s rapid-response force and is often among the first units sent to respond to emerging crises.”

Information coming from the Pentagon indicates that the unit providing the combat personnel from the 82nd will be the 1st Brigade Combat Team Immediate Response Force, which will include at least one battalion. It is not a full brigade, but it includes at least 1,000 shooters, plus staff and support personnel, who will number over 2,000 based on what follow-on elements might be needed. The 82nd will be in addition to the US Marine ground combat units. There are two Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) in the Gulf Region, each comprising between 2,200 and 2,500 Marines and sailors. The MEUs are self-contained with attack and support helicopters and MV-22 Ospreys, as well as other combat vehicles necessary for a rapid response, if necessary, in the Gulf.

The Alternative to a Major Invasion

One of the options open to President Trump, short of a large amphibious landing or airborne assault on mainland Iran, is to attack, capture, and occupy Kharg Island and the Strait of Hormuz. The Island is significant because it is the single point of failure for Iran’s oil industry. Nearly all Iranian oil is shipped worldwide from Kharg Island. If Iran lost control of this critical transshipment port, its economic lifeline would be severed. Occupying the Strait of Hormuz would open the waterway to transit for cargo and oil tankers. In an interview with Fox News, the Special Envoy for Ukraine and former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, Keith Kellogg, explained: “I’m a big believer in putting boots on the ground, not necessarily into Iran. But taking Kharg Island and also taking the Strait of Hormuz.” He pointed out that ground forces need to be inserted to “take key Iranian islands to break Iran’s control over the oil supply. Kellogg singled out Kharg Island, a vital hub in the Persian Gulf, as a key location for Iran’s oil exports,” Fox reported.

If the US controlled Kharg Island, Iran would hesitate to launch missiles and drones at the island for fear of destroying their only source of oil revenue. It’s hard to predict what the Iranian leadership, such as it is, would do, but it’s less likely to endanger the island’s transshipment and oil storage facilities. Furthermore, Iran has no serious capability to retake the island once it is in US hands. Holding Kharg Island would allow America to exert significant economic leverage on Tehran, persuading what’s left of the Iranian government to accept our conditions for ending the conflict. Use of ground forces for this limited operation would be the high-value, low-risk solution.

Dave is a retired U.S. Air Force Pilot with over 180 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the former Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller and has served in executive positions in the private sector aerospace and defense industry. This article was first published HERE