Skip to main content

← Israeli Press on US Ground Troops

How America can actually win the war against Iran - opinion

The Jerusalem Post published How America can actually win the war against Iran - opinion on July 20, 2026. In the column, Pesach Wolicki argues that the United States can seek a faster win without a single American boot on Iranian soil. An American family should care because he is not ignoring a ground war. He is spelling out a substitute for one, and he says twice that his substitute does not put American troops on Iranian soil.

Background for new readers: On 28 February 2026 the United States and Israel began a joint air war on Iran. The Pentagon calls its part Operation Epic Fury; Israel calls its part Operation Roaring Lion. It came eight months after a shorter war in June 2025, when US bombers hit Iran's nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The question running through this section is whether the air war turns into American soldiers fighting on Iranian soil. This article is filed under Israeli Press on US Ground Troops; the full article index lists every article on this shelf.

Evidence rating: MODERATE. A named commentator, Pesach Wolicki, published this argument in The Jerusalem Post's opinion pages. The rating covers what the column argues.

What the article says​

Wolicki's starting claim is that the regime in Tehran fears its own people more than it fears American bombs. He says that fact should shape how the United States tries to end the war. He writes that Washington has focused on strikes against military targets and infrastructure, and on economic pressure. He says both matter, but neither is likely to topple the regime on its own. Destroyed power plants, he writes, are a slow route. They give the regime time to adapt, to blame outsiders, and to keep its grip on the streets.

If America wants a faster, more decisive path to victory, without a single American boot on the ground, there are five things it should do instead.

Pesach Wolicki, in the Jerusalem Post, July 20, 2026.

These are his five proposals.

First, he wants a public demand for proof that Mojtaba Khamenei is alive. Wolicki describes Khamenei as the man now treated as Iran's supreme leader. He writes that since February 28 every statement attributed to Khamenei has been a written text, never a video or even an audio recording, unlike his father's practice of appearing on camera. Wolicki's conclusion is that Khamenei is likely dead or incapacitated. He wants Washington to say it will not keep talking through mediators until there is verifiable proof the man is alive and functioning. He says the regime cannot produce that proof, and that the resulting public crisis would do more damage than another round of strikes on civilian infrastructure.

Second, he wants Israel given a free hand to finish Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is the Lebanese armed group tied to Iran. Wolicki writes that it is not a militia that merely receives Iranian support. He calls it Iran's foreign legion, the ground force of a regime whose army, he says, was never built for a conventional war abroad. He wants Washington to call the Lebanon front part of the war against Iran and to let Israel dismantle Hezbollah.

Third, he wants President Donald Trump to call Iranians back into the streets. He pairs that with an announcement, which he wants Trump to make, that Israel will provide drone cover over Iranian cities to shield demonstrators from the Basij and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the forces that suppress protest. He also writes that regime officials should be told they will be held personally responsible, and personally targeted, if protesters are killed.

Fourth, he says stop bombing infrastructure and strike the enforcers instead. He writes that in the weeks before a ceasefire, Israel had already shifted to striking Basij checkpoints and Revolutionary Guard positions used to suppress demonstrations. He wants that model expanded. He argues the regime will not fall because a power grid goes dark. He argues that striking the men at the checkpoints could push enforcers toward desertion and give ordinary people room to protest.

Fifth, he wants Pakistan's overland routes closed. He writes that since the American blockade began, Pakistan has opened six overland trade routes into Iran, undercutting sanctions, and that the United States has known for months and said nothing. He wants Washington to say publicly that Islamabad must close them.

He then sums up in his own words. None of this, he writes, requires American troops on Iranian soil. What it requires, in his view, is a shift away from the idea that enough physical destruction will break the regime, and toward what he says the regime actually fears: its own people seeing it as weak, illegitimate, and unable to protect its enforcers.

What other reporting adds​

Others who want Iranian boots, not American ones. Wolicki is not alone. Israel's ambassador to Washington, Michael Leiter, told CBS in March: "our preference is for the boots on the ground to be those of the Iranians." (Politico, 8 March 2026; research capture: twitter/t13__v145.md). Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran's last shah, told Fox News in September, as one account transcribed him: "We're not asking America to put troops on the ground, as the president has said," and "Not asking for American boots on the ground. The boots on the ground are the people of Iran themselves." (@urgentintel on X, 23 September 2026; research capture: twitter/t13__v145.md).

Who else says American ground troops will be needed. Not everyone agrees the war can be won this way. Commentator Mark Levin, as quoted on an X trending page in March, said: "We've got to get the uranium" (research capture: twitter/t49__v584.md). A Jerusalem Post columnist, Mark Lavie, wrote: "If the US is afraid of getting army boots dirty, or, more seriously, taking some casualties in a legitimate military operation, then its army is a waste of time and money." (as quoted by Military.com, 9 September 2026; research capture: twitter/t58__v694.md). The Jerusalem Post's opinion pages carried both kinds of argument.

What it shows​

Even this column, which argues for winning without American boots on Iranian soil, treats the American ground war as the default the reader must be talked out of. Its plan relies on Israeli drones and a free hand for Israel in Lebanon, and on Iranians in the streets. The same paper's opinion pages also carried Mark Lavie's line that if the US is afraid of "getting army boots dirty," its army "is a waste of time and money," and, within two months, a plan for up to 1.5 million American troops. Israel's leading English paper was arguing over how, not whether, American power would finish the job. See Israeli Press on US Ground Troops.

Check it yourself​

Read the column: How America can actually win the war against Iran - opinion. The other sources below come from this investigation's research captures.

Last Updated: 2026-09-26

Last updated on