How the US might invade Iran |
American fighter aircraft sit on the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in support of Operation Epic Fury. Photo courtesy United States Department of Defense/Wikimedia Commons.
This past weekend, Trump threatened to escalate the war with Iran by destroying the country’s energy infrastructure, starting, as he said, “with the big one.” The “big one” was almost certainly a veiled reference to Iran’s civilian nuclear plants.
Iran’s Natanz nuclear plant had reportedly been hit with a US missile a few days earlier as a warning. As he announced his plan to destroy all of Iran’s civilian nuclear infrastructure, Trump further declared that Iran had 48 hours to capitulate before a US attack. Within 24 hours of Trump’s threat, oil prices jumped and stock market futures began to fall.
Before the 48 hours were up, on Monday morning, March 23—an hour before US stock markets opened—Trump announced that Iran had approached him for negotiations. Therefore, he said, the attack would be suspended for five more days, until the end of the week.
The five-day extension had nothing to do with actual negotiations, which Iran stated had never taken place. Trump invented it. The extension was another move by his administration to stabilize US stock markets and oil prices, both of which were set to spike. Within hours of the announcement, US oil prices (WTI) fell $10 a barrel to $90, and stock markets opened higher after a string of declines the previous week.
Since the war began on February 28, Trump and various administration officials have repeatedly claimed that negotiations were occurring, showing progress, or that the war was about to “end soon,” as Trump himself declared. The pattern shows these statements were largely aimed at keeping financial markets from falling too fast and preventing oil prices from surging.
But there’s another explanation for Trump’s about-face and his five-day suspension of the attack on Iran’s nuclear energy infrastructure: he is buying time to position US military forces in the region for a ground assault, to coincide with plans to bomb Iran’s nuclear and civilian energy infrastructure.
Here are some facts suggesting the five-day suspension is really about buying time for a much larger US military buildup.
Mainstream US media have reported that about 2,000 US Marines are en route by sea on the US landing ship Tripoli, coming from Asia to the Persian Gulf. If we are to believe the media, the US intends to invade Iran with just a couple of Marine battalions.
The Marines are said to plan a landing in the Strait of Hormuz area, supposedly to seize the strait and allow oil tankers to pass again. The media also promotes the idea that a second possible landing target is Iran’s Kharg Island, where 90 percent of Iran’s crude oil is refined and shipped. Kharg lies well into the Persian Gulf, closer to Kuwait than the Hormuz Strait. Media reports reference Trump’s own social media posts naming Kharg as a target for the Marines. US Senator Lindsey Graham regularly mentions taking Kharg Island in daily press briefings.
But it’s all likely deception.
In fact, the entire 2,000 Marines on the Tripoli may themselves be a ruse.
This raises the question: Is the US actually planning an invasion of Iran? And if so, where—if not Kharg Island or Hormuz? Sending 2,000 Marines to seize territory around Hormuz or Kharg would be a strategic disaster. It’s hard to imagine any senior US military advisor recommending it.
Kharg Island in 2015. Photo from Wikimedia Commons.
How would 2,000 Marines get through the Strait of Hormuz and sail up the Persian Gulf to assault Kharg Island? They would be sitting ducks, presuming they could even reach the island. Could such a small force hold Kharg if they landed? Marines don’t carry radars or anti-missile batteries. They would be heavily attacked and extremely difficult to resupply. The same applies to other islands in the Hormuz Strait, like Bandar Abbas. One Iranian missile could destroy the Tripoli and its 2,000 troops.
The fact that US officials publicly mention Kharg Island and Hormuz should signal that these are likely not the actual targets. The US does not discuss its true military objectives publicly.
Evidence suggests that when a US invasion comes—and it is coming—the landing will likely occur somewhere the media or Trump have not mentioned. A massive US military buildup is underway, blacked out by the media, involving more than a Marine battalion. It resembles the 2003 Iraq war mobilization.
Two US Airborne divisions—the 82nd and 101st—have been activated and are reportedly en route. Two Army Ranger battalions are also on the move. Another Marine brigade has left the US for the region, likely to relieve the first Marine force. That is a combined force of roughly 20,000 troops. Reports indicate two full US Army divisions may also be prepared to deploy, adding 50,000 more. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have indicated they will join the coalition, bringing the total to more than 75,000 ground troops. There is no way they intend to land on Kharg or any island in the strait.
US media briefly reported last week that forces are leaving Baghdad and redeploying to northern Iraq’s Kurdish region, which borders northwest Iran. US Air Force assets are being positioned at Turkey’s Incirlik NATO base, a 40-minute flight from northwest Iran.
Early in the war, there was talk of Kurdish forces entering Iran from northeast Iraq, with Azerbaijan also mentioned. Azerbaijan is known to be closely allied with Israel’s Mossad. But media coverage of Kurdish involvement quickly went silent.
The northeast Kurdish region is where US forces formerly stationed in Baghdad are relocating. Could this be where the two Airborne divisions and two Ranger battalions will go—rather than Kharg Island or Hormuz? A ground invasion from the northwest seems plausible, even likely, as it is geographically close to Tehran.
From Mosul in northeast Iraq or Astara in southern Azerbaijan, it is less than 200 miles to Tehran. Kurds and Azeris could seize and hold much of northwest Iran, where significant ethnic populations live. Combined with US Rangers and Airborne units, they could establish a foothold. Two US Army divisions could then cross from Incirlik or Mosul, providing heavy armour support for the invasion.
Israel is unlikely to join the coalition, preoccupied with operations in Lebanon, Syria, Palestine (West Bank), and Gaza.
Buildings in Tehran damaged by US-Israeli strikes. Photo courtesy Tasnim News Agency.
This does not confirm that northwest Iran and Tehran are the actual targets—but it is militarily more plausible than attempting to land insufficient Marine battalions on Kharg or in Hormuz, or deploying Airborne and Ranger divisions there. Certainly, it would not justify mobilizing two full armoured Army divisions.
Trump’s stated war objective is regime change in Iran. Negotiations are a deception, believed only by the most naïve or those reliant on mainstream media. The Iranians, Venezuelans, and Russians have all seen such tactics before.
The uprising of January-February 2025 failed to usher in the fall of the government. Limited military actions—naval blockades, bombings, decapitation strikes—have similarly failed to achieved regime change. Trump is now escalating to a direct military invasion.
He seems intent on rolling the dice to end the war quickly. Waiting until summer is economically and politically impossible. The longer Iran can sustain missile attacks, the greater the threat to the US and global economies. Markets can be temporarily manipulated, but escalation is inevitable.
Perhaps Trump should recall the disastrous “boots on the ground” interventions of 2001–03 in Afghanistan and Iraq, which cost an estimated $8 trillion. In 2001, US defence expenditures were $396 billion, GDP growth was 4.1 percent, and national debt $5.6 trillion. Today, defence spending is $1.1 trillion (with requests for another $200 billion), GDP growth is 0.7 percent, and national debt exceeds $39 trillion, costing $1.2 trillion in interest. The US empire can no longer afford costly direct invasions.
Wars are expensive; land invasions especially so. The US economy is already in early recession, with stagflation emerging. Trump and his advisors may believe the war will be over quickly, but the economic and political consequences will likely prove far more disruptive and difficult to manage.
Buckle up—it’s 2003 déjà vu, but this time the stakes are higher, and the fallout may be far worse.
Dr. Jack Rasmus is the author of several books on the United States and the global economy, including The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump (2020), Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy (2016), and The Twilight of American Imperialism (forthcoming later this year form Clarity Press). He is a host for the radio show Alternative Visions on the Progressive Radio Network, a journalist, a playwright, and a former professor of economics at St. Mary’s College (retired). He worked for 20 years for various tech start-ups and global companies, prior to which he served for 15 years as an organizer and local union president with several American unions.
More than 75% of our operating budget comes to us in the form of donations from our readers. These donations help to pay our bills, and honorariums for some of our writers, photographers and graphic artists. Our supporters are part of everything we do.