In recent days, U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats to deploy troops and launch a ground attack on Kharg Island in southern Iran have intensified, raising concerns both internationally and within the United States. These threats starkly contradict his claims of pursuing diplomacy. Trump, who campaigned on ending “forever wars,” is now signaling actions that go far beyond airstrikes, potentially in coordination with Israel.

On one hand, Trump talks about negotiating with Iran, but on the other, he has suggested that a limited military objective—such as destroying or seizing Kharg Island, through which 90% of Iran’s oil exports pass—could end the conflict. Public support for such attacks is now far lower than it has been at the start of previous foreign interventions.

Polling data shows that most Americans oppose an attack on Iran. Support ranges from 27% in a Reuters/Ipsos survey to 50% in a Fox News poll. This wide variation reflects a public still forming its opinion as more details about the potential attacks and their consequences emerge. A CNN/SSRS poll indicated that more than 65% of Americans oppose sending ground troops to Iran, with even a majority of Republicans reluctant to enter another foreign war. These numbers suggest significant political and public pressure against any broad-scale ground operation, presenting a major obstacle for Trump.

Opposition to this plan is widespread both domestically and internationally and is widely viewed as another example of Trump’s poor war management. Seth Moulton, a Democratic congressman and Iraq War veteran, said that sending a limited number of ground troops would not end the war but likely prolong it. “Deploying ground forces to Iran and turning this conflict into a ‘forever war’ is not a solution,” he said, calling the war fundamentally wrong.

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska expressed frustration with the administration’s lack of transparency regarding the objectives and scope of military operations. She voiced concern that the U.S. could enter a prolonged, costly war and is considering legislation to limit the government’s authority to deploy troops to Iran to ensure that the conflict has clear objectives and a defined end.

Another Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, while outwardly supporting troop deployments, warned that seizing Iranian islands could lead to heavy casualties and heightened tensions.

Comparing such an operation to the World War II battle of Iwo Jima, he noted that it could be disastrous for U.S. forces. Representative Mike Rogers of Alabama similarly said that private briefings with the Department of Defense failed to adequately answer lawmakers’ questions about the goals of the operations. “We want to know what options exist and why they are being considered, but so far we’ve received no satisfactory answers,” he said.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has strongly opposed sending ground troops, stating that the U.S. should not enter a war without clear objectives or a defined end. Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri also warned that Trump’s actions could drag the country into a long and dangerous conflict with enormous human and financial costs.

Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut stated that there is no justification for a U.S. ground war in Iran, and that sending additional troops would only increase the likelihood of casualties and escalate tensions. Senator Elizabeth Warren similarly cautioned that Trump’s plans could embroil the U.S. in a major humanitarian, economic, and geopolitical crisis.

Former military officials and defense analysts have also sounded alarms. Michael O’Hanlon, a defense strategy expert at the Brookings Institution, said the likelihood of success for any aggressive option is under 50% and that each option carries significant risks. Retired Admiral James Stavridis warned that seizing Kharg Island could amount to a “suicide mission” for U.S. forces, while Joe Kent, former head of Trump’s counterterrorism office, said that holding U.S. troops on the island would effectively make them hostages of Iran.

Veli Nasr, a leading Iran expert, stated that an attack on Kharg would not force Iran to surrender but would instead intensify the conflict. Capturing Kharg—essentially destroying it—would provoke a strong retaliatory response and likely spark a protracted resistance war. Nicole Grajewski, an expert on Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities, also noted that Trump’s administration has underestimated the difficulty of such a mission. The region is small and densely defended, and taking Kharg would not compel Iran to yield.

Analysts have warned that even a short-term operation could provoke missile and drone attacks from Iran, putting U.S. troops at serious risk. Former military officers emphasized that even if U.S. forces succeed in landing on the island, sustaining control would be nearly impossible. Defense analyst Bradley Bowman noted that moving from limited strikes to ground operations would reduce the U.S.’s comparative advantages and likely increase casualties.

Meanwhile, U.S. Gulf allies have warned of significant potential casualties and advised against any ground operation. Israeli security officials told media outlets that seizing Iranian islands or taking direct military action in the Strait of Hormuz is “complex and fraught with danger,” and could trigger widespread Iranian attacks on energy infrastructure, mine-laying, and a sharp escalation of tensions.

On the diplomatic front, Iran has declared that any ground invasion will be met with a severe response. Iran’s Defense Council warned that any intrusion on Iranian territory could result in mining the Persian Gulf and deploying Yemeni forces to block the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, demonstrating that Trump’s operations could escalate into a complex, region-wide crisis involving even Gulf and European allies.

The economic consequences of a ground attack would be severe, particularly for Western countries. Kharg Island exports roughly 1.5 million barrels of oil daily, much of it to global markets, especially the U.S. and European Union. Any disruption could instantly drive up oil prices. Bloomberg analysts warned that even a short halt in Iranian oil exports could push Brent crude over $100 per barrel, putting enormous pressure on Western economies.

Higher oil prices in the West would increase transportation, production, and energy costs for households and industries, driving up inflation in both the U.S. and Europe. Industrial and manufacturing companies reliant on cheap energy would have to pass costs to consumers, reducing purchasing power and slowing economic growth. Escalating energy crises could also weaken Western competitiveness in global markets, as fuel and energy costs push up transportation and raw material expenses for export-oriented industries. In response, Western countries might release strategic oil reserves, a short-term measure that only delays the economic strain.

Historical precedent further underscores the danger. As in Afghanistan after 9/11, an initial deployment of 3,000 troops quickly ballooned to over 100,000, turning the mission into a prolonged and costly conflict. A similar scenario in Iran, facing strong resistance and robust defenses, could result in a humanitarian and political catastrophe.

Ultimately, Trump’s military maneuvers, while claiming to pursue diplomacy, reveal a dangerous, unplanned policy that risks dragging the United States into a long, high-risk, and costly war.

Widespread domestic opposition, warnings from regional allies, and Iran’s own threats underscore that Trump’s actions are not only militarily perilous but also carry severe economic and political consequences, jeopardizing regional stability and undermining the confidence of U.S. allies.