· 187 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Mar 27, 2026 at 9:14 PM

The US needs a million troops to control Iran – not the few thousand on their way

Posted by BigFishPub


The US needs a million troops to control Iran – not the few thousand on their way
The Independent
The US needs a million troops to control Iran – not the few thousand on their way
Past wars have taught us that America’s threat to send a few thousand ground troops to Iran is an empty and dangerous fantasy, says world affairs editor Sam Kiley

🚩 Report this post

187 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
Mikethebest78 Mar 27, 2026 +295
I remember hearing "Our troops will be greeted as liberators" the last time we put troops in a country in the middle east. It didn't work out to well is all I am saying.
295
BigFishPub Mar 27, 2026 +156
And Iran is almost 3 times the size of Iraq with double the population. This shit is crazy.
156
Purify5 Mar 27, 2026 +118
And, it has both a forested and mountainous region. America's two most favourite terrains.
118
Actual-Photograph794 Mar 27, 2026 +106
Vietnamistan
106
The100th_Idiot Mar 28, 2026 +33
gesundheit
33
Actual-Photograph794 Mar 28, 2026 +5
the taking of Vietnamistan 123
5
LieverRoodDanRechts Mar 28, 2026 +1
iNam
1
Kawajiri1 Mar 28, 2026 +28
And they have been preparing for the past 40+ years.
28
MiddleAgedSponger Mar 28, 2026 +26
And it has a significantly more sophisticated population. A US invasion of Iran is more likely to result in Arab governments being overthrown and the American economy collapsing than American controlling or installing a government in Iran. A ground invasion will make the Arab spring look like an amuse bouche in comparison. This is god tier stupidity by people who are not smart enough to know they aren't smart enough. An extended period of expensive oil is going to wreck shop in the US.
26
Meins447 Mar 28, 2026 +1
And sadly, pretty much anywhere else too. Harsh reminder to everyone how dependant our entire civilization is on that stupid, sticky, black stuff, which is majority controlled by crazy, despotic people and also the religious nutjobs of the Middle East. We are all already a full, dangling step over the cliff of climate change but sure, go ahead with wars that release the yearly amount of exhausts of a decent sized country in like a week and completely wasting resources that we or our children at latest will wish back soon...
1
boli99 Mar 28, 2026 +1
> our entire civilization is on that stupid, sticky, black stuff Oil is the most Lovecraftian thing that actually exists. You're telling me that there's a black ichor under the earth, made from the ancient dead, whose burning can realize all the dreams of man but only at the price of slowly returning the earth to its primordial state?
1
Meins447 Mar 28, 2026 +1
Grest perspective. Oh, and by the way,: it is so much rarer than pretty much any anorganic substance (including things like gold, platinum or ice) once you take into account the resources available within "close" (in galactic terms) proximity of our little dirtball. To find more oil, we first need to find a place with (former) C-based life and the geology and time to have produced oil. Compare that to "lol, just drop an automated mine on an asteroid and come back next decade for more gold than anyone really needs".
1
Barbarus_Bloodshed Mar 28, 2026 +12
Now if you had allies who specialize in operating in forested or mountainous areas... like.... I dunno... nations in central and northern Europe....that would be great, wouldn't it? But alas, the US has none.
12
DroDameron Mar 28, 2026 +1
And Iraq, the "cakewalk" war compared to this one, took 8 years and we didn't really accomplish anything. 😮‍💨
1
Barbarus_Bloodshed Mar 28, 2026 +14
Without a revolt this whole thing will collapse. If US troops conquer Kharg and other islands... what then? There will be constant fire from the mainland. So then they have to conquer the mainland areas closest to the islands. Which will then be under constant fire from the mountains further into Iran. So then they have to conquer those mountains. And so on and so on and so on..... And logistically it's impossible as well. Even if Trump and his mentally unstable staff were willing to try and conquer all of Iran... it just wouldn't be possible. The US might have over 1 million troops globally. But not the ability to move these masses at the same time. The US military even struggles to move only something like 50k troops. That's already a huge undertaking. To get enough troops into Iran to conquer the whole thing the US would have to spend years first building the infrastructure to get the troops over there. And, of course, to feed these troops. And send them all the equipment. These supply chains would be insane. The US couldn't pay for that. People often look at the numbers and think "oh, the US have over 1 million soldiers... wow" and they think that this means that's over 1 million soldiers that can be deployed. Anywhere. At any time. That's complete nonsense. Logistically impossible.
14
amateurbreditor Mar 28, 2026 +1
why bother analyzing so much? Iran won. Its over. trump is running scared.he ruined the world economy by enriching himself like others did. oil is gone. the middleast is gone and magically iran and russia are to gain. its just magic iran oil goes through russian sanctions are gone iranian sanctions are gone. its treason.
1
RindoWarlock Mar 28, 2026 +1
He. Wants. To. Use. A. Nuke.
1
Barbarus_Bloodshed Mar 28, 2026 +1
No. Sry, but as crazy as he is, as much as I dislike him and his fascist ideas... no. I used to be worried he'd be a second Hitler, but I am kinda relieved now that he's too incompetent to be that and too dependant on people liking him. Using a nuke is something he would talk about because it makes him look powerful and he likes to look powerful but something he wouldn't do because he knows that would 100% make him the villain in the eyes of the vast majority of people on planet earth.
1
know-your-onions Mar 28, 2026 +1
I’m really not looking forward to the day r/RindoWarlock gets to come back here and say “I told you so”.
1
Antice Mar 28, 2026 +1
I got a nuke on my bingo card of doom this year. For the first time ever. Because if anyone is going to use one. It's going to be Trump. I never believed for a second that Putin would use one, but Trump? He would if they let him.
1
Pristine-Site-7339 Mar 28, 2026 +5
Probably run out of ammunition after the first couple of weeks and then a banking collapse.
5
Tealc420 Mar 28, 2026 +1
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they take khark and then are fired upon from the mainland, can't they just destroy their missile and artillery silos with their superior air control. I feel with total air superiority the us can achieve they can pretty easily take a small location and defend it with few troops, using it as a forward base to attack from also
1
restbest Mar 27, 2026 +33
And way harsher terrain, the us likely needs more than just a million soldiers to try and conquer it. Probably closer 3 million including all the support staff, some of those could be contractors or friendly nations but you’d still need well over 2 million actual US soldiers which just… don’t exist
33
Dearic75 Mar 27, 2026 +27
Wait, we still have friendly nations? Who?
27
RealGianath Mar 27, 2026 +23
Russia, North Korea, Hungary, Belarus, the Taliban. I'm sure there's a few other authoritarian dictatorships he's professed having a man-crush over I am forgetting.
23
mattyhtown Mar 27, 2026 +17
Can’t forget El Salvador Argentina and Israel
17
yama1008 Mar 28, 2026 +1
Israel soldiers are only effective in killing women and children.
1
darkoopz43 Mar 27, 2026 +9
Lol the worthless country of gods chosen welfare queen should absolutely never send troops to fight their war.
9
Mecha_Cthulhu Mar 28, 2026 +3
Should they? Absolutely. Will they? lolno
3
james_the_wanderer Mar 28, 2026 +1
Jesus dude, some people need to watch their sodium levels. \[I am stealing God's Chosen Welfare Queens\]
1
Accurate_Neat_355 Mar 27, 2026 +15
Yep, no coalition forces to lean on. Solo mission cause Israel is not crazy enough to enter into Iran. Think they jumped into Lebanon to look busy so trump couldn't ask
15
meltingman4 Mar 27, 2026 +4
All the nations that are signatories to the Bored of Peace.
4
mazarax Mar 27, 2026 +4
North Korea’s Kim Jung Un and ruSSia’s leader Putler are buddies with Diaper Don. Oh, and Argentina’s leader too, but I doubt he can send more than a platoon, as he is broke.
4
Darth-mickyluv Mar 28, 2026 +5
The Bored of Peace.
5
freeradioforall Mar 27, 2026 +3
They’ll exist overnight when they implement the draft
3
sh4tt3rai Mar 28, 2026 +1
Under trained and demoralized troops are worthless cannon fodder basically. Probably more likely to get the actual 1-2 guys in their squad who are worth their salt in combat murdered by revealing their location posting on social media, being loud, using a flashlight (or some form of fire), or running away when the combat actually comes. 10k trained troops (trained well and mentally prepared for combat) > 1 million scared conscripts who have never used a peep-sight before and who’s combat experience is the one time they got in a shoving match in middle school.
1
tierciel Mar 28, 2026 +1
I've seen some people estimate 2-3 million active duty soldiers to occupy. Closer to 4 or 5 to account for rotating people out and replacing casualties.
1
headbangershappyhour Mar 28, 2026 +1
We haven't actually prepared a military economy for that. Odds are that our SecDUI is gonna send them in with commands to forage and live off the land because logistics are too woke for his warrior ethos.
1
Barnaboule69 Mar 28, 2026 +1
So the Russian method.
1
motorcitydevil Mar 28, 2026 +1
We’re at 2.1mm total between active duty and reservists. F*** Donald Trump.
1
LA-Aron Mar 28, 2026 +7
Think about it...if your life is on the line, what do you do? Do you fight? Also, Iran has been preparing for an attack for who knows how long. They were ready. They got a million ready to fight, they control the Straight of Hormusz, they're making more money now than before. The only way we are going to overcome that would be an outrageous amount of force, which is possible. I wasn't alive for Vietnam but this feels like that. It's a trap, you don't want to fight in somebody's home jungle and you don't want to go to the desert and fight people who have lived there forever.
7
sh4tt3rai Mar 28, 2026 +1
The only way I could see us doing this is like you said, outrageous amounts of force. We would have to close the book on things like the Geneva convention and be okay with mass casualty events on civilians. If we did that though, I’m sure we could do it. I know it sounds terrible, and it is — but would anyone in the world really dare to step to a US military who has decided all the ethical and moral constraints on war are out the window? I do think this could possibly push the soft power China is trying to consolidate more into their lap.. but who needs soft power when you’re willing to be that ruthless? It only exists because no hard power has decided to throw the rules of engagement out the window. Honestly, from a strategic standpoint I can see what they’re trying to do to disrupt BRICS. Shutting China’s oil pipeline down in first Venezuela and then Iran would be a massive power move.. but it just isn’t going to be that easy. The moment Europe takes their eyes off Ukraine, Russia will steamroll and be knocking on their door and I’m just waiting for China to take advantage of the situation to surround Taiwan. We can’t fight NK/China and Iran at the same time, all while supporting our proxy war in Ukraine. Too many fronts. We need to bring our manufacturing back home and start worrying about the USA again. Get the whole continent (both North and South America) back under our sphere of influence, kick China out completely. Find a way to bring the people together and find a national identity the whole country can identify with and be proud of. The country the whole world saw and wanted to be apart of.! We need the old ethos of America back.. a country of savvy people who build quality things, and every man/woman knows how to build/basic survival skills. The people whose ingenuity inspired the world. This is all a pipe dream, though.
1
NextWeather7866 Mar 27, 2026 +3
If I trust anyone to make this excursion measurably more meaningful its Trump and his merry team of bandits.
3
cyanescens_burn Mar 28, 2026 +1
What you think, they try to take and hold Kharg Island and then get surprised it’s a disaster? Or something else? It doesn’t inspire confidence that they said they were surprised infrastructure in neighboring countries was hit. Especially when all the folks that are experts on this got fired in the weeks leading up to it. It comes off as they got canned because they advised against it rather than just saying yeah it’ll be great.
1
[deleted] Mar 27, 2026 +2
[deleted]
2
DrSpeckles Mar 27, 2026 +1
He’s only ever seen a map, which is, you know… flat. “What are all those squiggly lines?” In his mind it’s just like those scenes he remembers of vehicles rolling across the desert.
1
seamslegit Mar 27, 2026 +2
More than 3 times the population of 2003 Iraq.
2
weaponjaerevenge Mar 28, 2026 +2
And a greater ability to defend itself. And is friends with Russia.
2
CMG30 Mar 28, 2026 +2
And it has a population that has been preparing for this very scenario for the last 50 years...
2
Legaon Mar 28, 2026 +1
And most of the population, greatly embraces the “spiritual mindset” — Islamic spiritual mindset. Good luck Donny. Should have tried to: (1)weaken the spiritual mindset first. Potential regime change, would have been a lot easier with — weakened spiritual mindset + stronger secular mindset
1
ReaperUno8675309 Mar 28, 2026 +1
This is not about taking over Iran. This is a distraction from the Epstein files..they do not care about soldiers dying. In their eyes a bad war with Iran is still better than the president being arrested for being a pedophile.
1
KontraEpsilon Mar 28, 2026 +2
Honestly, the real issue isn’t the numbers. We could get what we need without too much insanity. The issue is that this type of thing takes 2-4 decades of commitment. Not 1-2 decades of maybe we will leave tomorrow and maybe we won’t. And that sort of thing is never going to happen (nor should it).
2
DreamingAboutSpace Mar 28, 2026 +1
If only this administration knew how to count.
1
Jackman1337 Mar 28, 2026 +1
Also the army is much bigger.
1
MiamiVicePurple Mar 28, 2026 +10
Even this time people have been saying that the Iranian people would welcome US troops. I don’t know if that’s the case after you blew up 150 school girls.
10
Dimathiel49 Mar 28, 2026 +11
Yeah they would welcome US troops with Molotovs and Kalashnikovs.
11
DiskSalt4643 Mar 27, 2026 +4
Im old enough to remember when Donald Trump promoted himself as the candidate against war in the Middle East.
4
JagmeetSingh2 Mar 28, 2026 +1
maybe cause bombing civilians and destabilizing countries under false pretences and invasions isn’t well received
1
spazz720 Mar 27, 2026 +3
The worst part was they were seen as liberators…until they disbanded the Iraqi army causing the insurgency.
3
brute-forced Mar 27, 2026 +1
WMDs!
1
Werftflammen Mar 28, 2026 +1
This is just from keeping Iran to invade the GCCs
1
JumpEnvironmental741 Mar 28, 2026 +1
i'm waiting for them to trot that bullshit out again...i am sure it is coming
1
medhat20005 Mar 28, 2026 +1
There's no number that will be adequate, any 'occupier' will always be that, and it wouldn't have helped that on day 1 we bombed a girls school. This administration tried to refute the late Colin Powell's adage, "if you break it you bought it," because we've done exactly that and the price we're going to pay is enormous and only going to get larger.
1
peacepipe0351 Mar 28, 2026 +1
Yeah I didn't speak their language, but pretty sure that's not what they called us.
1
AdventurouslyAngry Mar 28, 2026 +1
Hey, at least Iran has an exiled crown prince ready to take over on day one.
1
Tofurkey_Tom Mar 27, 2026 +81
What about the Israeli troops? Why aren't they being sent in? Why should our children die for a war that's not even ours to fight?
81
Broken-Digital-Clock Mar 28, 2026 +51
I'd prefer to see a coalition of Israel and ICE invade.
51
AgUnityDD Mar 28, 2026 +1
If there are fair elections again, and If the Iran war is still ongoing when Dems retake all branches They should totally just have mandatory conscription specifically for all of ICE and send them to the front for multiple tours.
1
Street_Anxiety2907 Mar 28, 2026 +1
They're sitting at home. I don't know if you know this but Israel is living large off our taxpayer money. We send them 4 billion dollars a year. Meanwhile here's some of Israels benefits: \* 100% state paid healthcare \* 24 weeks mandatory employer paid paternity/maternity leave \* universal state-run daycare from 6 months to school age \* free university education with guaranteed living stipend \* universal public housing guarantee (a lot of ZlONISTS have moved into Palestinian homes and [kicked the original homeowners](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V-zSC-fHBY), everyone gets a home as long as they are of the choosen people) \* fully nationalized essential utilities \* free universal eldercare and long-term care for disabilities \* universal mental health services with proactive outreach Source: Amounts are in USD millions of enacted budget authority. Totals are author calculations from cited line items; CRS “Table 1” totals for FY2021–FY2025 are shown separately in narrative because CRS aggregates some categories differently (notably excluding several smaller lines that are explicitly itemized here).  |Line item (USD, millions)|2018|2019|2020|2021|2022|2023|2024|2025| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |FMF (grants)|3,100.0|3,300.0|3,300.0|3,300.0|3,300.0|3,300.0|6,800.0|3,300.0| |Missile defense (core)|705.8|500.0|500.0|500.0|1,500.0|500.0|4,500.0|500.0| |Iron Beam (laser)|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|1,200.0|0.0| |Anti-tunnel|47.5|47.5|0.0|47.5|47.5|47.5|47.5|47.5| |Anti-drone/C-UAS|0.0|0.0|13.0|25.0|25.0|25.0|40.0|55.0| |Migration & refugee|7.5|5.0|5.0|5.0|5.0|5.0|5.0|—| |Other grants|6.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|15.0|0.0| |DoD stock repl./reimb.|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|4,400.0|0.0| |DoD ammo procurement|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|801.4|0.0| |DoD DPA purchases|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|198.6|0.0| |DoD CENTCOM ops|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|2,440.0|0.0| |TOTAL (direct)|3,866.8|3,852.5|3,818.0|3,877.5|4,877.5|3,877.5|12,607.5|3,902.5| |TOTAL (direct + DoD indirect)|3,866.8|
1
Street_Anxiety2907 Mar 28, 2026 +1
A key analytic point is that the easily cited “$3.8 billion per year” figure describes only two large channels (FMF + missile defense) under the 2016 MOU baseline; it excludes multiple smaller but persistent lines (anti-tunnel, counter-UAS, migration support) and—most importantly in wartime years—excludes U.S. costs to replenish U.S. stocks after providing defense articles and services tied to Israel contingencies.  This report uses U.S. fiscal years (FY2018–FY2025) and expresses amounts in current U.S. dollars as enacted budget authority unless otherwise stated; budget authority is not the same as cash outlays and can remain available for multiple years.  “Direct, budgeted” in the table means appropriations and congressionally directed funding that are Israel-targeted in statute or well-established CRS-tracked Israel cooperation lines (FMF; cooperative missile defense; anti-tunnel; counter-UAS; migration support; specified small cooperation grants).  “Direct + indirect DoD budgeted” adds Israel-related DoD supplemental appropriations that (a) replenish defense articles and services designated for provision to Israel, (b) expand ammunition procurement and industrial capacity in response to the Israel contingency, and (c) finance U.S. regional operations/force protection tied to that contingency. These are real U.S. budget exposures but are not equivalent to transfers “to Israel” in a narrow aid-accounting sense. 
1
Gwyllithar Mar 28, 2026 +26
too busy invading their neighbouring countries in a territorial land grab whilst everyone else is looking at the Strait of Hormuz....
26
RareBid Mar 27, 2026 +8
Well the US did make it their fight by continuously intervening in the Middle East for the past 70 years intentionally causing disruption and conflict... all for c**** oil
8
moonovrmissouri Mar 28, 2026 +2
The real question is why aren’t the Saudis sending their troops. They’re who stands to benefit the most from an unstable Iran. Trump and kushner et al got billions in deals from the Saudis and no one in the press is covering that
2
Wise-Music3007 Mar 28, 2026 +1
Yes I'd like to know the answer to this question too. I see the Saudis are sitting on the sidelines egging it on, whilst refusing to put themselves in the firing line
1
Unique-Egg-461 Mar 28, 2026 +2
[They are have some serious troop issues](https://share.google/UmD61fmvwO5LX51cv) Both Israel and the US are just going into this conflict with just stellar planning /s
2
Hot-Mathematician691 Mar 28, 2026 +1
They are too busy stealing land from their direct neighbors
1
Vast_Breadfruit_162 Mar 27, 2026 +75
The neo-cons are back, and they love to send in troops in woefully lower numbers than the mission requires. They do not enjoy providing adequate mission support once the troops are on site.
75
Droo99 Mar 27, 2026 +47
And then they wave a flag, talk about how they support the troops and get 75% of the military vote while simultaneously gutting the VA somehow
47
Chemical-Fault-7331 Mar 28, 2026 +9
They should just get rid of the VA at this point. Don’t gaslight the troops anymore when they are getting out about an agency that will support them. Just tell them “yeah you’re on your own”
9
smack54az Mar 27, 2026 +13
Wait till you see how they treat them when they get back. The ones that come back alive that is.
13
Ok-disaster2022 Mar 28, 2026 +4
The POW flag is gonna make a come back in a big way because of the number of POWs Iran is going to have.  This is going to be like Black hawk down x2000. The US is not prepared for war with Iran. The US military has spent like the last 5+ years restructuring to fight an island hopping campaign in the East Vietnam Sea or in Europe  
4
code603 Mar 27, 2026 +5
How else are their friends at Blackwater gonna make up the difference?
5
[deleted] Mar 28, 2026 +1
[removed]
1
ArohaWhanau Mar 28, 2026 +1
Or healthcare and benefits, once they get home.
1
throwawtphone Mar 28, 2026 +1
Money money to be made on a long drawn out protracted conflict.
1
Maeglin75 Mar 28, 2026 +1
I would say Bush Senior was very much a neo-con and he actually mustered nearly a million US and allied troops for Desert Storm. His son dialed it back to around half a million for the Iraq War 2003 edition. Now Trump wants to conquer Iran with 10.000.
1
johndoe201401 Mar 28, 2026 +1
How many to control the coastline though?
1
blazesquall Mar 27, 2026 -1
Are you suddenly onboard if they sent enough, well equipped troops?
-1
Vast_Breadfruit_162 Mar 27, 2026 +10
Not for a second. Just pointing out the incompetence. Don't do it, but if you are going to do it, don't send them into a slaughter.
10
Vishnej Mar 28, 2026 +1
Colin Powell and George HW Bush were regarded as miracle workers for a time.
1
Lanky_Salt_5865 Mar 27, 2026 +29
As long as Donald thinks he can’t somehow declare victory, he’s going to keep this going. There are going to be a lot of lives lost for nothing. I never understood why WWI started. The leaders were all cousins. But now I get it. They were idiots.
29
spazz720 Mar 27, 2026 +8
Well it WWI was mostly a result of defense alliances called into arms all because some dude who screwed up an assassination somehow was sitting in a cafe at the exact time his target was driving down the road.
8
nastywillow Mar 28, 2026 +3
WWI ... the leaders were all cousins. Cousin f****** idiots, the worst kind of idiots. And America's full of them.
3
heekma Mar 27, 2026 +48
Bear in mind global maps often distort scale, so here's some comparisons that will make sense to U.S. citizens: Afghanistan is about the size of Texas, a gigantic state and militias hiding in caves kept the U.S. at a stalmate for nearly 20 years. Iran is 2.5 times larger than Texas, with an organized military and modern weapons. The U.S. isn't capable of invading Iran. And just for additional comparison, Isreal is about the size of New Jersey.
48
Individual-Bench-634 Mar 27, 2026 +34
Their military is also decentralized so even if we take out one leader 6 more replace them. We decided to attack the one country that has been preparing for decapitation strikes for 40 years. Its mind numbingly dumb
34
Tofuloaf Mar 28, 2026 +1
I've been hearing military pundits say that taking out Iranian military leadership is a double edged sword in the sense that it's the kind of thing that triggers contingency plans they've had ready for decades. Instead of causing confusion it triggers decisive action.
1
Glittering-Ad3488 Mar 27, 2026 +4
For additional unrelated comparison, Jersey is approximately the same size as Disney World.
4
scrubjays Mar 28, 2026 +1
And has much shittier bagels.
1
Vishnej Mar 28, 2026 +12
1 million? That's it? Iran has 92 million people, which is 4 times the invasion-era population of Iraq or Afghanistan. "Operation Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan went in comically low on troops, 2500 at the start of 2002 ramping up to 10,000 by the end of the year. Few locals even knew we were there. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" started out with 150k American troops and 20k allies, waned down much lower (1/6th?), and then scaled back up to 170k American troops for the "Surge" six or seven years later. There seemed to be around 1:1 soldiers to contractor ratios for both wars. Both of these were relentlessly botched by a lack of American troop levels, a low tolerance for American casualties, and a low priority for spending money on the country we just destroyed. The counterinsurgency policies promoted by David Petraeus and others demanded a minimum 50:1 population to troop level (which they never got) with extensive interactions with the local population (or a minimum 10 occupation troops to 1 militant insurgent), which would have had us use around half a million American troops in each country simultaneously, or twice that if we wanted to maximize our odds of success. It was also essential that we do a lot more "nation-building" than bombing; Instead we stayed on our side of the wire as much as possible, and built a Burger King there next to the Rip-It vending machine. Iran is a much more defensible country militarily than Iraq, with a much more developed (100x? 1000x?) military and militia system than Afghanistan, and whose population, we have taken pains to ensure, hates us with a passion. Spitballing it? For Iran to come out as a cohesive ally at the end of it like Germany or Japan? 5 million or so troops. At a time. Total deployment with contractors over the next ten years, maybe 20 million. Maybe 20 trillion dollars. And also? Every. Single. Time. You double tap a wedding or a mosque, or do something equivalent, we add 1% to those numbers. There are no MQ-9-Reaper-based wars that satisfy the success condition.
12
Vishnej Mar 28, 2026 +4
Netanyahu doesn't seem to want Iran as a cohesive ally. Netanyahu wants threatening Islamic terror states as neighbors. Iran could break up into half a dozen warring states in varying degrees of fury and immiseration, providing a rich vein of hostility for Likud to tap. Just remember - every last one of them is Shia-majority, and we sort of assassinated their Pope.
4
Jimmycartel Mar 27, 2026 +9
Trump could have just not do dumb things like tariff and raging wars and the fed would have been cutting rates already and stock will keep pumping. Instead we have this clusterfuck.
9
nobadhotdog Mar 27, 2026 +8
He’s going to have 4k troops killed then he’s nuking it
8
Wretched_Gourd Mar 28, 2026 +2
God I f****** hope not
2
MonkeyCube Mar 28, 2026 +1
If people think the stock markets look bad now, wait until people start dropping nuclear bombs.
1
Diligent-Meaning751 Mar 27, 2026 +21
And it's one, two, three What are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn Next stop is \[in Iran!\] And it's five, six, seven Open up the pearly gates Ah, ain't no time to wonder why Whoopee, we're all gonna die
21
I405CA Mar 27, 2026 +7
If Trump doesn't know that (and he probably doesn't), Caine will. If they were serious about regime change, the staging for the operation would have started weeks or months ago. Trump surely that thought this was supposed to last just a few days and he would receive a tanker of oil that he could sell for his own account. So far, not so good. He's already getting bored. >A senior White House official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the administration's thinking, told (MSNOW) that Trump is calling the war already won is mostly hyperbole and said it's part of Trump just wanting to declare victory and move on. That official went on to say, quote, not that he regrets it or something. He's just bored and he wants to move on. >[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS4CDsWVPG4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS4CDsWVPG4)
7
Mala_Practice Mar 28, 2026 +2
To change the regime in Iran would require the complete defeat of the IRGC and all proxies. A difficult task that the US Military has not equipped themselves for in Iran.
2
WakingWaldo Mar 28, 2026 +1
He wanted and expected another Venezuela, but there's a reason why no presidents have invaded Iran.
1
Njabachi Mar 28, 2026 +8
$120 trillion dollar deficit incoming 
8
Living-Literature88 Mar 27, 2026 +7
I read one former intelligence person who has worked on Iranian war assessments say that taking Kharg island would be suicide for any ground troops. And also Iran has gamed this out and would easily capture troops and use as hostages.
7
chaostheories36 Mar 27, 2026 +7
Or, crazy thought, the US doesn’t need or want to control Iran and we don’t send any troops. Thats a great idea right?
7
Winter_Aspect_8675 Mar 28, 2026 +1
Send ICE, they're all dressed for it. As long as they're not having to move at more than a gentle trot they should be good to go.
1
theslumbutt Mar 27, 2026 +11
Can't wait to dodge the draft
11
MakeAbortions Mar 27, 2026 +3
trump the draft\*
3
Broken-Digital-Clock Mar 28, 2026 +4
My bonespurs are acting up again.
4
BeMancini Mar 28, 2026 +2
They just raised the age of enlistment to 42!
2
nastywillow Mar 28, 2026 +1
Pro hint - bone spurs, guaranteed deferment.
1
Vinslom_Bardy Mar 28, 2026 +1
Bone spurs, and a 200 million dollar trust fund from daddy’s Nazi money.
1
baatezu Mar 27, 2026 +5
Feels like these are the sacrificial batch whose deaths will justify sending the rest. Vietnam War started with roughly 3,500 Marines from the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade. By the end we had sent over half a million.
5
HowManyEggs2Many Mar 28, 2026 +11
Military members and their families are overwhelmingly conservative, so I guess I’m happy they are getting what they voted for.
11
reddittorbrigade Mar 27, 2026 +12
The incompetency of Trump government will result into deaths of our troops. If Kamala was our president, we wouldn't be in this war. Our lives would have been in better situation. Trump had scrapped the Iran deal so we could start a war.
12
FantasticJacket7 Mar 27, 2026 +6
You need way more than a million troops to occupy a country twice the size of Texas unless you're going to commit genocide with airstrikes prior to invasion.
6
Broken-Digital-Clock Mar 28, 2026 +4
Our Sec of War seems to prefer those strategies.
4
8bitmorals Mar 27, 2026 +3
well, why cant Israel send their military? why must Americans die for this?
3
neepster44 Mar 28, 2026 +1
Because our politicians are owned by AIPAC, an American Israeli PAC that advocates for Israel above the US.
1
lizkbyer Mar 27, 2026 +3
Hell, no, we won’t go.
3
Cautious-Progress876 Mar 28, 2026 +3
Hope all of the families that voted for Trump so he “wouldn’t send their boys to war like Kamala would” enjoy burying their children.
3
128-NotePolyVA Mar 27, 2026 +2
Correct. Desert Storm required a 650,000 troop invasion force.
2
MakeAbortions Mar 27, 2026 +2
im sure out of the 77million devout followers a million shouldnt be hard to muster up
2
neepster44 Mar 28, 2026 +1
Half of those fat asses couldn't get out of their chair by themselves
1
ImaSource Mar 28, 2026 +2
The US has already lost this war. We just don't know it yet.
2
100farts Mar 28, 2026 +1
Guess we'll just have to send ICE to bolster their numbers.
1
Accomplished-Pace207 Mar 28, 2026 +1
If only we had an epic fail example in Eastern Europe where another smart guy launched a three days operation which, after a million deaths and wounded and over four years is still at the border of the invaded country with no hope of ever winning. Well...
1
Xezshibole Mar 27, 2026 +4
At this point there are a few options Full commital ground war and all to demolish Iranian conventional military capabilities, and thereby their means to threaten the Straight. Would require **raising taxes** to fund the conversion to a wartime economy, since the years this will take will give Iran years to do the same. We can just do it to a far greater extent. Which of course, since it requires raising taxes to actually fund it all, doesn't appear likely. Meaning the more likely outcome. Trump loses interest and signs a humiliating ceasefire that cedes control of the Straights to Iran. Iran operates a toll system. Examples of such historical systems being Denmark did with the Sound Toll. US loses a significant chunk of its global soft power as enforcer of the Straights, as *we* were the ones capable of cutting oil supply to damn near anyone threatening our interests, by pinching Hormuz as Iran does now. Saudi Arabia more than likely militarizes in response to such wins and we'd eventually have open warfare between the two fighting over the exact same region. Aka he tosses this dumpster fire he started down the road for someone else to put out Edit: spelling.
4
Iyellkhan Mar 27, 2026 +1
GWB basically "proved" that you dont need to raise taxes to fund a war. and that kind of MMT thinking may lead to a dollar crisis if the US keeps escalating
1
Xezshibole Mar 27, 2026 +2
GWB never fought a prolonged war against an industrial era enemy. For both Bushes they wiped the conventional forces in Afghanistan and Iraq (twice) within weeks. What was left after "Mission Accomplished" were mere militias with small arms, not requiring the high activity and thereby high amount of munitions nor heavy equipment a conventional war requires. Difference from then and now is also that they did so without giving either Iraq nor Afghanistan the time to adjust to a wartime setting. It's different with Iran whose conventional forces are now digging in for a prolonged fight. It's pretty easy to see the difference. It's been weeks now of US military operations, have Iran's conventional forces demolished enough as to call a victory? No? It's now not going to end without either escalation to demolish Iran's conventional military, or a serious loss of US soft power by forfeiting the Straights to Iranian control. That has been like the minimum demand from Iran in a potential ceasefire, and even without it they now know the power they hold over the global economy.
2
Comicalacimoc Mar 28, 2026 +1
How did we control it before then
1
Xezshibole Mar 28, 2026 +1
We had several of our largest bases there and the conventional norm and rules we helped write that kept these chokepoints in "international waters." Anyone who depended upon Gulf State oil production all were kept in check by their inability to control the Gulf. US had such a high presence to enforce these waters that it could hold the Gulf as a checkpoint and only allow favored vessels through, much like Iran is doing now. There would be nothing most countries, including China, could do to salvage 60% of their energy and logistics needs. Few can send a fleet that far undetected, fewer can defeat a US fleet basically permanently stationed there, fewer can then take the US bases without deep damage to the oil infrastructure to the region they themselves depend on, and even fewer can keep that supply line unharassed by the *other* US fleets.
1
Comicalacimoc Mar 28, 2026 +1
So what changed now
1
Xezshibole Mar 28, 2026 +1
Say a war with China starts. We blockade the Straight from much further away. Which would include the current Iran friendly tankers leaving, many to China. Iran, who now hold the Straights, responds by blocking everyone else. Much higher damage to the global economy.
1
EricThePerplexed Mar 28, 2026 +4
I feel bad for young men. Things genuinely suck for them, and they've been manipulated by a media ecosystem into developing warped world views that fuel emotional and social isolation. That all led them to collectively make political choices that are absolutely suicidal. They need to make common cause with women and everyone else, stat. They can learn social and empathetic skills to make genuine human connections along the way. In doing so, they may just save themselves from a horrible pointless death in 125 degree heat.
4
Individual-Bench-634 Mar 27, 2026 +2
Once they get these 10,000 or so killed they will say we need a draft a d start drafting people.
2
CzPhantom1 Mar 27, 2026 +2
I think the point of the troops is to take over a small island. Not invade the entire country.
2
Jimmycartel Mar 27, 2026 +2
But small troops will not deter Iran from disrupting Hormuz it is pretty much pointless.
2
SeenItAllHeardItAll Mar 27, 2026 +1
A million troups sounds a lot but thinking about the logistics how much actual soldiers are there when the power has to be projected around the world? A million US military personel won't be enough to get to parity to a million Iranian soldiers. And that is not taking into account all the problems operating in a hostile and geographically difficult environment.
1
BallKnowerKing Mar 27, 2026 +3
>logistics how much actual soldiers are there when the power has to be projected around the world? active duty there are about 1.3 million. 450k in army, 310k in Air force (about 90k in ground forces), 350k in navy and 180k marines
3
brokenmessiah Mar 27, 2026 +1
Kind of surprised they don't seem to be waiting for a attack on US soil to do this.
1
ACaffeinatedBear Mar 27, 2026 +1
Why bother? What is anyone going to do about it? Heck, if anything happens to them they can use that as justification for further escalation. There are no rules anymore.
1
brokenmessiah Mar 27, 2026 +1
Exactly why I’m surprised. They don’t have the public support but they would in this case
1
ACaffeinatedBear Mar 27, 2026 +1
Yeah, but why? What’s the public going to do? Protest? Vote harder?
1
Jp95060 Mar 27, 2026 +1
Who knew that trying to do what can’t be done with no alleys would fail? They need to put this on his cognitive test.
1
Darkstar197 Mar 27, 2026 +1
Who would have thought that it takes more than 50k to occupy 90million?
1
commitme Mar 27, 2026 +1
so send a million!! /s
1
RecordFirst1055 Mar 27, 2026 +1
The administration dismissed anyone with accurate assessment of the situation
1
beadzy Mar 27, 2026 +1
lol there are only 1.3M active troops. so good luck with that
1
lioneaglegriffin Mar 27, 2026 +1
Look up the term tripwire force. A small presence that gets attacked is used to justify sending more people.
1
isekai_cheese Mar 27, 2026 +1
"helps on the way" 2 months later after +10k dead and a dead supreme leader, and thousands dead and rising.
1
Junior-Gorg Mar 28, 2026 +1
And they would need to be there for about 30 years
1
spazzvogel Mar 28, 2026 +1
Generals gathered in their masses…
1
Much-Instruction-807 Mar 28, 2026 +1
There's 90 million people there it's 4 times larger than Iraq and mountainous. Wtf did you think would happen?
1
wezworldwide Mar 28, 2026 +1
Our current tax structure cannot afford a war
1
BODYBUTCHER Mar 28, 2026 +1
I don’t think they plan to occupy Iran
1
turb0_encapsulator Mar 28, 2026 +1
that's basically all of them.
1
WanderingKing Mar 28, 2026 +1
Nah f*** it if these troops are gonna take the order (instead of going the Vietnam route of blowing up their commanders) trickle them in so they drop like flies Anti-human death corps is all the US military is anymore
1
Kauri1 Mar 28, 2026 +1
Why is the USA heading into a kill box?
1
stickybond009 Mar 28, 2026 +1
Mission creep, already?💀
1
stickybond009 Mar 28, 2026 +1
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/9/us-israel-war-on-iran-a-brief-history-of-mission-creep-and-false-promises US-Israel war on Iran: A brief history of mission creep and false promises
1
CaptInzane Mar 28, 2026 +1
[ Removed by Listnook ]
1
baldbuddha_uk Mar 28, 2026 +1
Even a complete yoyo knows this. Trump knows best. Only way to change his mind is when bodies start coming back in mango crates, stock market collapses and then he is will reverse course. Off course only thing that changes his mind is the stock market not dead bodies
1
Negative_Gravitas Mar 28, 2026 +1
There are about 620,000 troops in the Marines and army combined. If all of them, ALL of them were deployed to iran, it would be nowhere near enough. In fact, I'm not sure how big the number would have to be but, Iran has 93 million people, so the number is sure as shit bigger than our total Ground Forces. It's insane to even talk about this shit.
1
Alternative-Joke5557 Mar 28, 2026 +1
I fear ambush
1
obxhead Mar 28, 2026 +1
They could send 10 million. It wouldn't be enough.
1
doomeddeath Mar 28, 2026 +1
Cannonfodder
1
commanche_00 Mar 28, 2026 +1
Expendable
1
Whooptidooh Mar 28, 2026 +1
Actual lol. All of this just to try to make people forget he’s a convicted rapist and pedophile.
1
-Top-Service- Mar 28, 2026 +1
Send enough to create a disaster not enough to do anything useful, sounds about right.
1
StyleTop9399 Mar 27, 2026 +1
Prayers for our troops and their families. God bless them and our country
1
Sorta_jewy_with_it Mar 27, 2026 +1
The troops going aren’t going to control the country. At minimum they’ll be targeted raids against shore targets (raid meaning a planned withdrawal) and at maximum seizing Kharg island and a few bits on the coast.
1
SummerIlsaBeauty Mar 27, 2026 +3
They most likely will die on that island, it's in the artillery and especially fpv range, will be worse than Zmiinyi Island. It's like USA didn't pay attention the last 4 years
3
Intel-Source Mar 27, 2026 +1
Draft time??
1
IllustriousRange226 Mar 28, 2026 +1
One million?  Iran is currently recruiting kids age 12.  The Iran-Iraq war battles were like scenes from a zombie movie.  One million?  Yeah right. We’re gonna need a bigger boat. 
1
nasorrty346tfrgser Mar 27, 2026
lets bring draft back, I wanna see the young gen Z "alpha male" reaction
0
rigeld2 Mar 27, 2026 +2
How about let's not draft people to fight in a war that we have no business being in in the first place?
2
bel9708 Mar 27, 2026 +1
What a gay control fantasy you have there. 
1
Intel-Source Mar 27, 2026
Trump will soon restart the draft!!
0
Worth-Tank336 Mar 27, 2026
Although a dumb idea...the U.S. military could invade the islands and hold some of the coastline in a limited coastal invasion. No one is talking about a country wide invasion.
0
Vusiwe Mar 28, 2026 +1
E-Day 2026 (EPSTEIN DAY)
1
← Back to Board