More than a week has passed since the United States renewed its aggression against Iran, after Washington cited what it described as Iranian attacks on vessels attempting to cross the Strait of Hormuz without complying with Tehran’s instructions.
The United States has since launched a series of air strikes that remain ongoing at the time of writing, while President Donald Trump has warned that the second week of fighting will bring an unprecedented American campaign against Iran.
These threats have led many observers to speculate that Trump could order a limited ground operation in southern Iran to secure full control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Such a move would represent a major transformation in the confrontation and push the conflict into a new and more dangerous phase. Despite the United States’ vast military capabilities, the terrain of southern Iran and the country’s wider geography would make any ground operation highly complex.
Prospects for a Ground Operation
Should the United States choose to launch a ground operation, it would probably not involve a full-scale invasion of Iran, particularly given reports that Washington has prepared around 50,000 troops for such a mission.
It is highly unlikely that a force of this size could advance from Iran’s narrow southern coastline, penetrate the country’s mountainous interior, cross the Zagros Mountains towards Tehran and then establish control over the entire country.
The Zagros range presents a major obstacle. It extends across large parts of Iran from the south-east to the north-west, with elevations ranging from approximately 2,000 to 3,000 metres.
Even with air superiority, a force of 50,000 soldiers would face immense difficulty moving from confined coastal areas into high, rugged and inhospitable mountain terrain.
If Trump does choose to pursue a ground campaign, it may therefore be limited, at least initially, to capturing a strategically important coastal position that could alter the balance of power and improve Washington’s negotiating position.
However, even this option would place American troops within range of Iranian fire from nearby mountains. A position intended to strengthen the United States could instead become a liability and provide Tehran with additional strategic leverage in future negotiations.
At first glance, Iran’s southern coastline may appear suitable for an American ground incursion, particularly because US air and naval superiority could facilitate large-scale amphibious landings.
Yet a successful landing would not necessarily produce a strategic victory.
Iran covers approximately 1.648 million square kilometres and contains not only the Zagros Mountains, but also the Alborz range, which stretches from west to east and separates the Iranian plateau from Central Asia.
The country also contains numerous mountains, valleys and difficult natural barriers that would severely restrict the manoeuvrability of any invading army.
Any ground force landing along the coast would therefore face two equally difficult options.
It could remain in the coastal area it had captured, leaving itself exposed to Iranian missiles and drones and effectively transforming an invading force into hostages within Iran’s reach.
Alternatively, it could attempt to create strategic depth by advancing further into Iranian territory.
Iran could respond to such an advance by declaring a general mobilisation, placing American forces in a serious military predicament.
Unlike Iraq, which was invaded in 2003 by approximately 160,000 American troops while already militarily exhausted, Iran is not in the same weakened condition.
Iran possesses advanced and effective weapons systems, difficult terrain that bears little resemblance to Iraq’s open plains, and a population of more than 92 million people.
The Strategic Position of the Strait of Hormuz
Any assessment of a possible American military operation must begin with its central objective: securing the Strait of Hormuz.
The strait is one of the most important geopolitical chokepoints in the global economy. Any power capable of controlling it gains considerable influence over global energy security by regulating the passage of oil and gas tankers.
Approximately 20 per cent of the world’s oil passes through the waterway.
The expected strategic objective of any American military campaign would therefore be to establish dominance over the Strait of Hormuz and prevent Iran from challenging US control.
The geographical reality, however, creates a significant problem.
The northern coastline of the strait belongs to Iran, while the southern coast falls within the Sultanate of Oman. At its narrowest point, the waterway is approximately 39 kilometres wide.
Commercial navigation passes through two shipping lanes, each two nautical miles wide, separated by a two-nautical-mile buffer zone.
Even if the United States successfully landed troops on Iran’s southern coast, Iranian missiles, drones and fast boats could still target these narrow maritime corridors and disrupt shipping.
This would undermine the principal objective Washington would be seeking to achieve through a ground campaign.
The American challenge is therefore not limited to conducting a successful amphibious landing, which would itself involve considerable difficulties.
Washington would also need to guarantee complete control over the Strait of Hormuz, an objective that would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, under the conditions described.
The Risk of a Prolonged War of Attrition
A ground operation could draw the United States into a prolonged war of attrition in which its troops become fixed and highly exposed targets.
A historical parallel can be found in the Gallipoli campaign in Türkiye during the First World War, when a British amphibious landing developed into one of the greatest disasters suffered by the British Empire.
The failure ultimately cost Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, his position.
American forces stationed along Iran’s coast could face a similar operational dilemma if they were unable either to withdraw safely or advance decisively into the interior.
Strategic Conclusions
The United States would face a serious dilemma if it chose to launch a ground campaign.
One option would be a highly costly attempt to advance towards Tehran and overthrow the Iranian government, an objective that would be close to impossible given the capabilities available to the Islamic Republic.
The alternative would be to secure a coastal zone in southern Iran.
Such a position, however, would remain highly vulnerable to Iranian forces experienced in asymmetric warfare.
Iran could target American bases and supply routes with missiles and drones, while also attacking ships and offshore facilities.
The confrontation could then spread across the wider region, potentially involving the closure of the Bab al-Mandab Strait and the disruption of international internet cables.
Such developments could trigger a global economic crisis affecting both energy supplies and the digital economy.
The central question now is what Donald Trump will choose to do next.
