Hüsamettin İnaç: US risks heavy losses if it attacks Iran on land - INTERVIEW
Against the backdrop of rising tensions around Iran, the redeployment of US forces to the Middle East, and increasingly alarming discussions about the possibility of a limited ground operation, a sober, professional, and strategically calibrated external perspective is especially important. How realistic is Washington’s reliance on a ground operation scenario? Where is the line between military pressure and preparation for a major war? And could the White House attempt to turn even a limited tactical episode into a political “victory”?
News.Az discussed these issues in an interview with Hüsamettin İnaç, a prominent Turkish political analyst and professor at Dumlupınar University.
– Can the deployment of the USS Tripoli to the Middle East be viewed as a sign that the United States is preparing for a limited ground operation against Iran, and how much does Washington today need at least a symbolic “victory” amid obvious strategic difficulties?
– The deployment of the USS Tripoli to the Middle East appears, first and foremost, to be an attempt to increase pressure on Iran. To put it plainly, Trump has not achieved any of the goals he has pursued so far. He sought regime change, but that did not happen.
He hoped to win over the population, but that also failed. He aimed to sharply weaken, if not completely dismantle, Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. Yet here, too, it is difficult to speak of success.
Moreover, by closing the Strait of Hormuz and striking Arab states hosting American bases, Iran has managed to exert significant pressure. This, in turn, has strengthened the perception of failure surrounding the American-Israeli alliance. Consequently, Trump now needs a success story. In this context, it cannot be ruled out that he is bringing the possibility of at least a limited ground operation to the forefront so that, after reopening the Strait of Hormuz, he can present it as a victory.
Source: IRNA
However, the statement by Pakistan’s president is particularly revealing. He makes an important point: Trump presents the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz as his victory, even though the strait was already open before the war began.
This clearly illustrates how contradictory and internally fragile the very concept of “victory” can be in such conflicts. In other words, it is an attempt to present the restoration of the status quo as a triumph.
– Does this mean that the United States may rely only on pinpoint strikes, abandoning a large-scale ground operation?
– This suggests that a US ground operation would entail extremely high risks and consequences. If one considers the islands — particularly any move toward Hormuz and Kharg Island — it becomes clear that landing troops there would be extremely difficult. Conducting an airborne assault in such conditions would, in practice, be nearly impossible.
Source: PRESS TV
If such an attempt were nevertheless made, then, figuratively speaking, along nearly 3,000 kilometers of coastline near the Zagros Mountains, American forces would come under fire from Iranian troops in highly exposed conditions. Ultimately, this could result in hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of American casualties. Therefore, such a large-scale ground operation is widely assessed as practically unfeasible.
However, as you noted, increased pressure on the coastline and key maritime routes may indeed lead to a short-term, targeted operation. A prolonged — let alone permanent — presence of American troops in that area is also seen as highly unlikely.
– Can it be said that preparation for an operation against Iran is also being used by the United States as an instrument of political pressure?
– One possible scenario is constructed in precisely this way, and in that sense your question is very relevant. At the moment when preparations for a military operation are underway or steps have already been taken toward its implementation, the idea of a ceasefire, conflict settlement, and transition to stable peace may gain particular importance.
In such a case, it could be declared: we were preparing to take control of these islands and conduct an operation on Iranian territory, but because we place exceptional value on peace and do not want bloodshed, we chose a peaceful path instead. From the perspective of projecting a peace-oriented image, this could be a significant political move.
In this regard, the Pentagon and the CIA should, in principle, have a comprehensive understanding of the situation. However, reports from Israeli intelligence are said to be influencing Trump’s approach, pushing him toward a riskier course. He appears to be listening less to the Pentagon and more to Mossad. For a rational decision-making process, such a step would be difficult to describe as balanced.
Iran is a country with a territory of 1.68 million square kilometers that has, for decades, prepared for such scenarios and maintains an active army of more than one million soldiers. A direct ground attack on Iran therefore runs counter to logic and established military strategy. Such an approach can hardly be considered reasonable.
Consequently, if viewed from this perspective, the launch of such an operation could ultimately lead not only to serious consequences for the United States but also to major political repercussions for Trump himself.
– Does a ground operation represent a point of no return?
– Of course, the buildup of military presence in the region and the concentration of forces can indeed be seen as the first step toward war. In international discourse, the term “war” is not usually applied to isolated air strikes; instead, terms such as “clash” or “operation” are used.
Accordingly, what is currently taking place between Iran, Israel, and the United States cannot yet be described as a full-scale war. It is more accurate to refer to it as a military confrontation or operation.
Source: foxnews
Similar news
