Will Trump Put Boots on the Ground in Iran?

Why It Matters

A covert strike could alter the balance of Iran’s nuclear capability, but the potential loss of American troops and diplomatic backlash could destabilize regional security. The move would also set a precedent for future unilateral actions against nuclear proliferation.

Key Takeaways

• Potential US special ops targeting Iran's uranium stockpile
• Estimated 1,000 pounds of highly-enriched uranium at risk
• Ground deployment could cause significant U.S. casualties
• Lessons drawn from prior US-Israeli operations in region
• Political fallout could outweigh tactical gains

Pulse Analysis

The prospect of a U.S. special‑operations incursion into Iran reflects a growing willingness to confront nuclear proliferation through kinetic means. Iran’s clandestine stockpile of roughly 1,000 pounds of weapons‑grade uranium represents a strategic prize for any adversary, and securing it could theoretically delay Tehran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon. However, the logistical challenges of inserting elite troops into a hostile environment, compounded by Iran’s sophisticated air‑defense network and rapid mobilization capacity, make such an operation exceptionally risky.

Historical precedents offer a sobering lesson. The 2007 U.S. raid on a suspected nuclear facility in Syria and Israel’s 2018 airstrike on the Natanz enrichment plant both achieved short‑term tactical objectives but sparked intense diplomatic fallout and heightened regional tensions. Max Boot’s caution about “substantial casualties” echoes the experience of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, where ground engagements often escalated into protracted conflicts. Moreover, the covert nature of special‑operations missions limits political oversight, increasing the chance of unintended escalation with Iranian proxy forces.

Beyond the battlefield, a unilateral strike would reverberate through global non‑proliferation regimes and U.S. alliances. It could undermine ongoing diplomatic channels, such as the revived talks on a potential nuclear accord, while emboldening hardliners in Tehran to adopt a more confrontational posture. For policymakers, the decision hinges on balancing the immediate security gain of removing enriched uranium against the long‑term costs of potential loss of life, regional instability, and erosion of international norms governing the use of force.

Original Description

“There’s talk about potentially using special operations troops inside Iran to try to secure Iran’s stockpile of nearly 1,000 pounds of highly-enriched uranium…But any time you put a substantial amount of ground troops in Iran, you’re running the risk of substantial casualties,” says CFR expert Max Boot.

Boot joined James M. Lindsay on The President’s Inbox podcast to discuss the tactical and strategic lessons learned from the U.S. and Israeli military operations against Iran.

Subscribe to our channel: https://goo.gl/WCYsH7

This work represents the views and opinions solely of the author. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

Visit the CFR website: http://www.cfr.org

Follow CFR on X: http://www.twitter.com/cfr_org

Follow CFR on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/councilonforeignrelations/