After six canceled and delayed flights, I was finally able to get home to Israel last week, having been stranded in the U.S. for three weeks due to the war. I used my time productively, conducting 20 interviews and briefings in the last two weeks alone. Most of my interviewers were interested in my perspective as a dual American-Israeli citizen on the war against the Islamic Republic, the challenges in Israel, and my not being there with my family.
In one of the conversations, the host affirmed his support for the war and Israel repeatedly, but also repeatedly stated that he drew a line at U.S. “boots on the ground.” At the moment, I agreed with him. The goal is the absolute elimination and prevention of any Iranian nuclear and long-range missile program, and to create the conditions for millions of Iranians to rise up and finally take back their country from the extremist Islamists after nearly half a century, precluding the need for “boots on the ground.”
After the interview, the conversation replayed in my mind, and I began to wonder rhetorically, why not boots on the ground? If we agree that the war is just and necessary, and that its goals of eliminating the Islamic Republic and its threats are essential, why would we put any limits on what’s needed to do so? And if putting limits, such as a red line of U.S. troops on the ground, might impede the operations’ ultimate success, is that not counterproductive? Could it not enable the Islamic Republic to regenerate itself and create havoc and terror for another half a century?
Since the interview, there have been reports of possible limited operations that might see U.S. boots on the ground, along the lines of taking over specific strategic and military sites in the Persian Gulf and that control the Strait of Hormuz. This is juxtaposed to a full-scale military invasion of Iran with large numbers of boots on the ground for the long term. The latter has never been official U.S. policy and is widely viewed by many military analysts, historians, and strategists as not in America’s national interests. But perhaps there are shades of “boots on the ground” that are not only necessary, but ought to be considered acceptable. Part of the question is messaging from the administration, in stating clear goals and means to achieve these goals. I’m not saying boots on the ground are necessary or inevitable. But I am wondering if the majority of Americans agree that the war is necessary, why not consider any means needed?
Air strikes have damaged Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but cannot prevent its reconstitution. With enough enriched uranium to produce 11 nuclear weapons, it’s probable that only physical control could verifiably dismantle facilities, secure highly enriched uranium stockpiles, and prevent covert rebuilding. Under no circumstances can Iran be left with enriched uranium. Last time I checked, Uber does not have a service to collect and dispose of these.
This is not only because a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the rest of the world (think how much more damage they could do, threatening the Strait of Hormuz and gas prices, armed with nuclear weapons), but it would inevitably create a nuclear arms race among other regional players: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt.
The current war is a battle in a 17,000-day war against the United States since Islamists captured the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and have been chanting “death to America” every day since. Considering Iranian funding, arming, and directing terror proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, and Shia militias that have attacked U.S. forces, interests, and allies for decades, maybe a ground campaign would be a necessary element to eliminate the “axis of resistance.” This could reduce long-term threats to U.S. personnel in the Middle East, global shipping, partners like Israel and Gulf Arab states, and even NATO. The short-term risk could yield long-term savings in U.S. defense spending and counterterrorism efforts compared to perpetual containment.
Iran directly controls and has exploited key chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz (through which ~20 percent of global oil passes), and indirectly through the Houthis in Yemen, the Bab al Mandab Strait, and the Gulf of Aden. A ground operation could free these vital global shipping routes through which so much global commerce passes.
In the past month, Iran has learned to exercise its influence, and the world has seen how threatening and destabilizing this short-term disruption has been. This cannot be allowed to continue.
In addition to its “axis of resistance” and network of terror proxies around the world, the Islamic Republic is allied with Russia and China, providing arms, drones, oil, and diplomatic cover. If only for U.S. interests in weakening the influence of its adversaries, boots on the ground can be an effective tool. Conversely, allowing the Islamic Republic to remain standing weakens U.S. interests vis-à-vis these adversaries.
There’s a paradox in that many in the American mainstream (left-leaning) media acknowledge the existence of sleeper cells and Islamic Republic agents in the U.S., recognizing that Iran is a threat domestically. But the same people decry the war as unjust, illegal, or unnecessary.
For too long, the United States has looked at the threats of the Islamic Republic of Iran through the prism of how it wants the world to be, rather than the realities of how the world is.
The fact is that before February 28, Iran continued to enrich uranium and build a massive quantity of long-range ballistic missiles (so far able to reach Europe). It has maintained its genocidal messianic goal to eradicate America, the West, and our Judeo-Christian values.
If the war is just and the objectives necessary, why are all means not acceptable? While isolationists and Islamists will disagree, why not boots on the ground? What if we fail to win this war, and the cost in human lives, including future American soldiers, will be even worse than anything that can be projected now?
What if in order to prevent all this, boots on the ground was not only an option, but essential?
World peace is a nice aspiration for Miss America contestants, but by eliminating the threat of the Islamic Republic, it is actually within reach. Today we have the greatest prospect for peace since WWII, if not any time since the 7th century.
One other thought. While the goal of a military operation should not be retribution, it would be poetic justice if U.S. Marines on the ground had a role in overthrowing the Islamic Republic. Certainly, nobody forgets or forgives the 1983 Iranian-backed attack on the U.S. Marines barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 Marines. Semper fi.