Skip to main content

← American Soldiers — Articles

Air War Is Not Enough: How an Air-and-Sea War Points to Ground Troops

Every war against Iran since June 2025 has been sold as an air war. The June 2025 "12-day war" ended with American B-2 bombers hitting Iran's nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan and flying home. Vice President JD Vance said afterward: "We have no interest in a protracted conflict. We have no interest in boots on the ground." The war that began on 28 February 2026, which the Pentagon calls Operation Epic Fury and Israel calls Operation Roaring Lion, was sold the same way.

The problem, stated by the war's own generals, supporters, and Israeli analysts, is that the goals set for this war cannot be reached from the air. Toppling Iran's government, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and removing Iran's buried uranium all require people on the ground. When the bombing does not deliver, the pressure moves one way: toward sending them. This page shows that logic in the words of the people who hold it.

Evidence rating: CONFIRMED that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Dan Caine, told lawmakers "Air power has its limits," and that US officials described the July 2026 strikes as "shaping operations" preparing for heavier missions. STRONG that the air war's stated goals cannot be met without ground forces; this is the view of analysts across the spectrum quoted below, including the war's strongest supporters.

The goals that bombs cannot reach​

Start with what the war was for. On day one, Israel and the United States went, in the words of a Forward columnist writing from Tel Aviv, "for regime change," and Trump urged Iranians to take over their government (The Forward, 28 February 2026). Commentary's John Podhoretz spelled out what that aim would take: "A regime-change war would effectively require us to go in on the ground in Tehran, take out the mullahs" (Commentary, 28 February 2026).

The Times of Israel's diplomatic reporter, Lazar Berman, answered the question three weeks in. His headline: "Israel and US have tried to take down Iran from the air. History shows the idea lacks legs." Air campaigns, he wrote, "can only do so much without complementary boots on the ground." He quoted Daniel Byman of CSIS: to impose control, "you need control of the ground" (Times of Israel, 23 March 2026). Israel's ambassador in Washington, Michael Leiter, gave his government's answer in the same piece: "I think that we need boots on the ground but they've got to be Iranian boots, and I think they're coming." By the end of March Israel's Channel 12 had reported that Israeli soldiers would not take part in any ground operation (see Israel Keeps Its Infantry Home). The Iranian boots did not come. The only boots left on the list were American.

Go deeper: Regime change from the air: what the war's own advocates wrote

The supporters say it too​

This is not only the argument of critics. Some of the war's strongest defenders wrote the same thing.

  • Eli Lake, Commentary, March: "After all, without boots on the ground, neither the U.S. nor Israel will have the ability to shape the inevitable chaos that will result after the bombing stops" (Commentary, 13 March 2026).
  • Jonathan Schanzer, Commentary, April: "without forces physically holding territory and forcing the regime in Iran to its knees, Trump has few viable options other than to punish the regime with an unrelenting torrent of withering blows from above" (Commentary, 16 April 2026).
  • Michael Singh, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, one week in: Iran's ability to keep firing "may be a function of the U.S. decision not to employ ground forces, which is likely rooted more in politics than strategy" (Washington Institute, 6 March 2026).
  • Michael Doran of the Hudson Institute, Tablet, September: Iran's missiles and drones are spread out, mobile, and buried, and "Truly eradicating its dispersed arsenal might require controlling the ground on which it sits" (Tablet, 2 September 2026).
  • Rep. Sheri Biggs (R-S.C.), an Air National Guard officer, War on the Rocks: "While boots on the ground is a scenario everyone wishes to avoid, we must be clear-eyed: If that is what it takes to permanently eliminate the threat of a nuclear-armed Tehran, then that is what we must do" (War on the Rocks, 31 March 2026).
  • Reuel Marc Gerecht, FDD, September: reopening Hormuz "could lead to the loss of U.S. warships and deployment of ground troops on islands and the mainland littoral" (FDD, 17 September 2026).
  • Hal Brands, AEI and Bloomberg: "Trump sought maximalist objectives — the geopolitical surrender or collapse of the regime — but ruled out using ground troops" (AEI, 13 July 2026).

Several of these writers are among the war's most prominent supporters. Their shared conclusion is that the war cannot win from the air. The Stimson Center put the choice most bluntly in June: "the administration had few options left: put boots on the ground or end its senseless war on Iran."

The generals: "Air power has its limits"​

The military said it in private and then in public. On 2 March CSIS's Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel, told the Christian Science Monitor: "Air power alone has never been able to effect regime change. So, they need something else." In August, IBTimes UK reported that Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told lawmakers: "Air power has its limits." CENTCOM's intelligence branch emailed analysts: "We are looking for new creative and unconventional ways to pressure and punish Iran" (IBTimes UK, 3 August 2026). The Jerusalem Post's report on that email drew the conclusion: buried sites that bombs cannot reach mean "Fully eliminating them could therefore require American troops to enter Iran" (Jerusalem Post, 3 August 2026).

CNN reported that Caine privately told Rubio, Vance, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe that the United States needs an "off-ramp," because bombing alone was unlikely to meet the president's goals. Ynetnews, carrying the report, wrote that "many administration officials and outside analysts believe a decisive defeat of Iran would require a large ground operation," a step that "could cost thousands of American lives," and that "the Pentagon has contingency plans for such scenarios" (Ynetnews, 7 August 2026).

Go deeper: Caine: "Air power has its limits"

July: bombing to "set the stage"​

When the ceasefire collapsed in July, the bombing itself was described as preparation for ground operations. Three US officials told Reuters that the new strikes on Iranian air defenses, coastal radar, missile sites, and small boats were "shaping operations," meant to wear down defenses before harder missions. One said: "This is helping set the stage, if needed." Reuters recalled its March reporting on "U.S. military planning to create options to deploy U.S. troops to Iran's shoreline to better secure the Strait" (Reuters, 15 July 2026; Times of Israel). The Wall Street Journal reported the options discussed in the Situation Room included "deploying ground troops to seize Iranian [territory] near the Strait of Hormuz" (Times of Israel, 15 July 2026). Asked about taking Kharg Island, Trump said: "If we wear them down hard enough and deep enough, I'll do it" (Ynetnews). And on Fox: "We have other people that will do the ground campaign for us" (CNN).

That is the ladder in one month: bomb to shape the ground, brief the ground options, and promise the ground campaign to "other people."

Go deeper: July 2026: "shaping operations" for a ground phase

The escalation ladder, in the officials' own words​

DateWordsSpeaker
22 Jun 2025"We have no interest in a protracted conflict. We have no interest in boots on the ground."VP Vance, NBC
1 Mar 2026"There will be no American boots on the ground. This is not Iraq."Sen. Graham, NBC
2 Mar 2026"Every president says, 'There will be no boots on the ground.' I don't say it."President Trump, New York Post
4 Mar 2026"We've taken control of Iran's airspace and waterways without boots on the ground."Sec. Hegseth, New York Times
17 Mar 2026Marines on Kharg Island are "not ... boots on the ground in combat circumstances."Rep. Sessions, CNN
28 Mar 2026"Pentagon prepares for weeks of ground operations in Iran."Washington Post
31 Mar 2026"Our adversary right now thinks there are 15 different ways we could come at them with boots on the ground. And guess what? There are."Sec. Hegseth
5 Apr 2026More than 90 US service members on the ground inside Iran for the F-15E rescueCENTCOM, per CBS 60 Minutes
15 Jul 2026"This is helping set the stage, if needed."US official, Reuters
25 Jul 2026A uranium raid "would involve thousands of ground troops storming Iran's nuclear facilities"New York Post
Aug 2026"Air power has its limits."Gen. Caine, to lawmakers

For the full record of the public promises, see No Boots on the Ground. For the plans, see Pentagon Ground Plans 2026.

Why the "no boots" line is kept​

A CNAS fellow, Daniel Schneiderman, explained on France 24 why leaders prefer an air war: "there's a degree of ability to deny that the US is involved in a long-standing war during an air campaign" (CNAS, 5 March 2026). That sentence explains the whole section. An air war can be called "not a war." A ground war cannot. So the air war continues, the goals stay out of reach, the ground plans stay on the shelf, the ground forces stay in range, and the public is told nothing is happening. Plato's cave is the image this investigation uses for that: see Plato's cave.

Go deeper​

The articles on this page's shelf​

Status: JD Vance is alive. Dan Caine is alive. Mark Cancian is alive. Michael Leiter is alive. Eli Lake is alive. Jonathan Schanzer is alive. Michael Singh is alive. Michael Doran is alive. Sheri Biggs is alive. Reuel Marc Gerecht is alive. Hal Brands is alive. Daniel Schneiderman is alive.

Sources​

Last Updated: 2026-09-26

Last updated on