Pentagon Advances Contingency Plans for Limited Ground Operations in Iran as Conflict Enters Critical Phase

WASHINGTON – As the U.S.-Iran conflict enters its sixth week, the Pentagon has developed detailed contingency plans for limited boots-on-the-ground missions inside Iran, according to multiple officials and reporting from The Washington Post, Axios, Newsmax, and The New York Times. These options are framed as short-duration raids rather than a full-scale invasion, designed to deliver a decisive blow if indirect negotiations fail and Iran continues to threaten global shipping lanes.

President Donald Trump has publicly signaled openness to aggressive measures while maintaining that diplomacy remains the preferred path. The plans reflect a dual-track strategy: maximum military pressure paired with a 15-point peace proposal delivered through intermediaries.

Current Status of the Conflict

U.S. and Israeli strikes began Feb. 28, 2026, targeting Iranian leadership, nuclear infrastructure, and military sites. Iran has responded with missile and drone attacks on U.S. bases, Israeli cities, and Gulf shipping. The U.S. has sustained 13 deaths and more than 300 wounded. Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb Strait, disrupting roughly one-fifth of global oil shipments.

With over 50,000 U.S. troops already in the region and additional Marines and elements of the 82nd Airborne Division en route, the administration is preparing for escalation if Tehran rejects the latest ceasefire framework.

Strategic Objectives of Potential Ground Missions

The primary goals center on three areas: denying Iran nuclear breakout capability, neutralizing threats to commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and crippling the regime’s oil revenue stream. Officials emphasize these would be limited, time-bound operations — potentially lasting days to weeks — rather than prolonged occupation.

Key Potential Targets and Operations

Seizing or Blockading Kharg Island

Kharg Island, an 8-kilometer rocky outcrop 50 km off Iran’s coast, handles approximately 90% of the country’s oil exports. Trump has openly discussed seizing the terminal, telling the Financial Times, “Maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don’t. We have a lot of options.” A ground raid or blockade would starve the regime of revenue while sending a clear message. Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf warned that any invasion would be met with “fire” on U.S. forces and regional partners.

Securing Coastline and Islands in the Strait of Hormuz

The narrow strait forces tankers within miles of Iran’s mountainous southern coast, where mobile missile batteries, drones, and mines pose asymmetric threats. Contingency plans include:

• Raids on Larak Island at the strait’s narrowest point, which hosts Iranian bunkers, attack craft, and radars.
• Operations on Abu Musa and the Tunbs Islands near the western entrance, sites long contested with the UAE.
• Coastal raids to destroy radar facilities, command centers, and weapon caches hidden in cliffs and caves.

The New York Times interactive report notes that even after extensive airstrikes, residual Iranian threats persist due to the terrain’s natural concealment. Limited Marine ground insertions could establish temporary air-defense perimeters or clear minefields, though experts warn such missions would require heavy air cover and expose troops to close-range fire.

Securing Enriched Uranium Stocks

Pentagon planners are also preparing scenarios to seize roughly 1,000 pounds of enriched uranium from sites such as the underground tunnel at Isfahan and caches at Natanz. Trump has repeatedly stated Iran cannot keep the material and has directed the Pentagon to provide “maximum optionality.” Any such operation would likely involve special operations forces for rapid insertion and extraction, with conventional infantry providing support and perimeter security.

Forces Available and Timeline

The 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit aboard the USS Tripoli is already conducting drills, while thousands of 82nd Airborne paratroopers are on alert for rapid deployment. Officials describe the force posture as sufficient for short-duration raids but insufficient for sustained occupation of Iranian territory.

Risks and Challenges

Military analysts and chemical weapons experts highlight significant hazards. Any ground presence would expose U.S. personnel to Iranian drones, ballistic missiles, ground fire, and improvised explosives. Former Marine officer Jonathan Hackett noted Marines are drilling chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) protective gear with 15-second response times to “gas” alerts, citing Iran’s advanced pharmaceutical industry and possible acquisition of Syrian chemical stockpiles.

Alex Plitsas of the Atlantic Council warned that large-scale ground forces risk repeating Iraq-era insurgencies. Public polling shows limited support: a CNN survey found 60% of Americans see no clear plan, while an AP-NORC poll indicated 59% view the actions as excessive.

Iranian officials have vowed fierce resistance. Qalibaf stated Iranian forces are “waiting for the arrival of American troops on the ground to set them on fire.” Economic fallout could include oil prices spiking above $150 per barrel and further disruption of global shipping.

Administration Stance and Outlook

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stressed that planning does not equal decision-making: “It’s the job of the Pentagon to make preparations in order to give the commander in chief maximum optionality.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said objectives can be met without prolonged ground operations.

Trump continues to urge Iran to accept the peace proposal while warning of harder strikes if talks collapse. The Pentagon’s contingency planning provides the president with credible leverage, but senior officials privately describe ground missions as a last resort due to the human and political costs.

As the conflict intensifies, the administration’s willingness to consider boots on the ground underscores its commitment to preventing a nuclear Iran and restoring freedom of navigation — even at the risk of deeper entanglement in the Middle East. No final decision has been made, and diplomatic channels remain active through Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt.