Skip to main content

← Air War Is Not Enough

The Cost of Hesitation: Why Finishing the Mission is Imperative in Iran

On 31 March 2026, War on the Rocks, a U.S. national-security site, published The Cost of Hesitation: Why Finishing the Mission is Imperative in Iran. The author is Rep. Sheri Biggs, a South Carolina Republican. She is also a lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard. An American family should care because a sitting member of Congress writes that the United States should finish the fight against Iran's nuclear and missile programs. She says she hopes to avoid soldiers on the ground. She also says the country must send them if that is what it takes to stop a nuclear-armed Tehran.

Evidence rating: MODERATE. This rates the published argument of a sitting member of Congress, an Air National Guard lieutenant colonel, that if boots on the ground are "what it takes to permanently eliminate the threat of a nuclear-armed Tehran, then that is what we must do." The views are hers, as the page notes, not a Defense Department position.

What the article says​

An editor's note says War on the Rocks is running "for" and "against" articles on the war with Iran by legislators who have served in the military. This is the "for" side. The paired piece is by Sen. Ruben Gallego.

Biggs writes that she has flown as an Air Force medical crew director and has seen service members evacuated from the Middle East. She names Operations Epic Fury and Roaring Lion as the operations now underway to take apart Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. She says half-measures in the past hurt the people sent to fight. She says the mission in Iran has to be finished.

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.

Rep. Sheri Biggs, War on the Rocks, 31 March 2026.

She ties that view to her votes for Iran sanctions bills, H.R. 1800 and H.R. 1422. She writes that sanctions were not enough. She cites other reports that, before the current operations, Iran held more than 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent, and that the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear inspector, had been blocked from checking sites. Those figures are what she says other reports showed. This page did not open those reports.

She also writes that U.S. forces heading to the region were drilling for contamination warfare, citing The National, and that military families at home need better mental-health support. The rest of the column is about deterrence toward China and Russia, and about finishing what she calls a constitutional duty to protect Americans from a regime that has chanted "death to America."

The bio says she represents South Carolina's Third District, sits on the House Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security committees, and served as a medical crew director during Operation Freedom's Sentinel.

What other reporting and posts add​

Another South Carolina Republican took the opposite view. Rep. Nancy Mace, from the same state's delegation, posted after a classified House Armed Services briefing: "I will not support troops on the ground in Iran. EVEN MORE SO after this briefing." That line is quoted in a 26 March thread; the capture did not include Mace's own post link. @jackimaniel, 26 March 2026. (capture: twitter/t49__v581.md)

Israel's prime minister on the uranium Biggs cites. Biggs's case rests on Iran's enriched uranium. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on CBS's 60 Minutes in May: "You go in, and you take it out," adding that Trump had told him, "'I want to go in there.'" CBS News, 10 May 2026. (capture: twitter/t13__v145.md) He would not say whose special forces.

What voters said. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released 19 March found, as Common Dreams reported, "just 7% of US voters support the idea of a large-scale ground invasion of Iran" and "55% said they would oppose the use of any ground troops." Common Dreams, 20 March 2026. (capture: twitter/t13__v147.md)

What it shows​

A member of the House, one month into the war, wrote in plain words that Americans should be sent onto the ground in Iran if that is what finishing the mission takes. The mission she names is the one Israel's prime minister also names: the enriched uranium, which Netanyahu said on 60 Minutes must be removed: "You go in, and you take it out." Israel's press, the same week this column ran, reported that Israeli infantry would not join a US ground operation. Voters were not asked; the Reuters/Ipsos poll found just 7% supporting a large-scale ground invasion. The column shows how the case for American boots is made in Washington while the public says no (see Congress and the Public and Israel Keeps Its Infantry Home).

Check it yourself​

Status: Sheri Biggs is alive.

For a newcomer: the United States and Israel began bombing Iran on 28 February 2026. War on the Rocks, a widely read online national-security publication, ran paired essays by two lawmakers who have served in uniform, one for pressing on and one against. This is the "for" essay. Its key line, that ground troops may be needed "if that is what it takes," is one of the clearest statements by a sitting member of Congress in favor of American soldiers going into Iran if necessary. For the opposing essay, see The Trump Administration Had No Plan for the War with Iran.

Research captures: twitter/t49__v581.md, twitter/t13__v145.md, twitter/t13__v147.md

Last Updated: 2026-09-26

Last updated on