Skip to main content

← Israeli Press on US Ground Troops

Trump's bet: toppling Iran's regime without boots on the ground

Makor Rishon, an Israeli newspaper, published a Hebrew column by Elhanan Speiser, ההימור של טראמפ: הפלת המשטר באיראן בלי "מגפיים על הקרקע". The page does not print a publication date next to his name. The only date on the page is the site header, 23 September 2026, and that is the site's date, not a byline. Speiser's subject is whether President Donald Trump can try to bring down Iran's government from a distance, without sending American soldiers in. An American family should care because the column is about the fear of another Iraq or Afghanistan, and about the White House denials that fear produces.

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. Speiser is a named Makor Rishon columnist reporting the White House line in the war's first days, including a Vance quote he takes from the Washington Post.

What the article says​

Speiser writes that Israel and the United States had just opened a wave of strikes on Iran that, in his view, surpassed even the 12-day war of the previous June. He writes that Washington had not formally declared war. He contrasts this with the US war in Iraq in 2003. This time, he writes, no divisions are preparing to deploy in the Gulf, and Congress is not debating an occupation of the country.

He writes that Trump's circle wants to topple the Islamic Republic, an aim he says has echoed in the White House since 1979. He writes that they think they can do it by remote control. He says the White House gave the operation a name he prints in Hebrew as זעם דחוף, which means urgent fury. He describes the bet as sustained air power, cyber pressure, a tighter economic squeeze, and more unrest inside Iran, together with Israel. The premise, he writes, is that Iran's system is more fragile than ever and might collapse if enough pressure hits specific points.

He writes that, while the United States gathered a large force off Iran's coast, military chiefs and Trump's advisers laid out options. The range, he writes, ran from a limited symbolic strike to a broad and lasting attack. He cites the Wall Street Journal for the claim that Trump pushed early for decisive military action, and that White House sources expected the heavy strikes to continue. He writes that Israeli strikes focused on senior officials and missile forces, and American strikes on military targets.

He quotes Mick Mulroy, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East and a former CIA officer, talking to the Journal. Speiser's rendering is that the strikes look maximalist because they aimed not only at the nuclear program and ballistic missiles but at the regime itself, and that they call for regime change in specific terms. Mulroy's point, as Speiser gives it, is that the regime would treat this as a threat to its existence, so no response would be off the table. Speiser writes that Iran had already fired missiles at Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, besides Israel and American bases in the region.

On the ground, Speiser writes that Americans fear an invasion. He writes that people on the American right who want the United States to stay out of foreign wars, and who also sharply oppose the air strikes, are raising theories about what comes next. He writes that the White House has to keep denying those theories.

אין שום סיכוי שניתקע במלחמה במזרח התיכון במשך שנים, בלי סוף באופק

JD Vance, as Elhanan Speiser quotes him in Makor Rishon from remarks Vance gave the Washington Post. Speiser writes that Vance said this only a few days before the column. The column has no printed date. In plain English, the sentence says there is no chance of getting stuck in a Middle East war for years, with no end in sight. Speiser adds that Vance is known for doubting American military involvement overseas, and that Vance has openly urged the United States to stop most of its support for Ukraine.

Speiser writes that the bet then rests almost entirely on Iranians themselves, mostly unarmed and split among opposition groups that distrust one another. He writes that the current strikes followed street protests, and that repression of those protests killed tens of thousands. That death figure is his statement. This page cannot verify it. He asks whether opposition groups are ready for a real change of government.

He writes that Gulf states fear chaos if Iran's government falls, because their cities and oil sites sit close to Iran. He writes that Turkey fears another war on its borders if Kurds and other minorities seek self-rule. He quotes Trump, from a video Speiser says was published on a Saturday, telling Iranians they had asked for America's help for years and not received it, and that no other president was willing to do what Trump was willing to do that night.

Speiser also writes that, according to an indictment filed while Joe Biden was president, Iran's government planned an attempt on Trump's life during the 2024 election. He offers that as his own guess about why Trump cleared the bombers. The column does not quote the indictment.

He writes that Trump likes visible force mixed with negotiation. He writes that Trump is not committed to overthrowing governments in the older style of rebuilding them by occupation. He writes that Trump is committed to using force as leverage toward a deal. If the regime cracks, Speiser expects louder talk from Washington and more pushing for a change of government. If days of heavy strikes change nothing, and if Iran finds a way to impose a cost on US forces in the region, he writes that Trump may rethink, declare that deterrence was achieved, and pull back.

He writes that the remote model tempts Washington because it promises a large strategic gain without American dead, and without a slow drain into a war that does not end. If the regime survives, he writes, Trump's side of the party could lose support to Vance and to that stay-out faction. A failed attempt to shake the regime, he writes, could strengthen the forces Washington wants to weaken.

What other reporting adds​

When it likely ran. The column describes a wave of strikes that had "just" opened, a Trump video published "on a Saturday," and an operation name, זעם דחוף, that matches Operation Epic Fury. The war began on Saturday, 28 February 2026. The column most likely ran in the first days of March 2026. That is an inference from its contents, not a printed date.

What the White House was saying that week. On 2 March, Trump told the New York Post: "I don't have the yips with respect to boots on the ground – like every president says, 'There will be no boots on the ground.' I don't say it … I say 'probably don't need them' [or] 'if they were necessary.'" (as quoted by Yahoo News; research capture: twitter/t52__v618.md). Speiser's line that Trump "made clear he does not intend to send any soldier" is stronger than Trump's own words that day. Senator Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally, said on 1 March: "There will be no American boots on the ground. This is not Iraq. This is not Germany. This is not Japan." (Newsweek, 2 March 2026; research capture: twitter/t52__v618.md).

Vance, later in March. Vance's view held: "We're not interested in being in Iran a year down the road, two years down the road," he said on a podcast, as a digest quoting Ynet put it (@ZackEiseman on X, 30 March 2026; research capture: twitter/t49__v587.md).

What it shows​

The column records the promise made to the public in the first days of the war: no divisions preparing to deploy, no occupation, and, in Vance's words as Speiser renders them, no chance of getting stuck in a Middle East war for years. Trump himself said that same week, of "no boots on the ground": "I don't say it."

Set the promise against what followed. Within three weeks CBS reported detailed Pentagon preparations for ground forces in Iran. On 28 March the Washington Post reported weeks of planned ground operations. Marine Expeditionary Units and the 82nd Airborne were sent. In April more than 90 US troops were on Iranian soil, and by September deployments had been extended into 2027. See No Boots on the Ground and The Buildup.

Check it yourself​

Status: Donald Trump is alive. JD Vance is alive.

Last Updated: 2026-09-26

Last updated on