“We have no interest in a protracted conflict,” Vice President JD Vance mentioned in June 2025, hours after the United States carried out airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear services. Then he added: “We have no interest in boots on the ground.”
The administration is singing a distinct tune at the moment, refusing to rule out that prospect greater than two weeks right into a extra in depth battle towards Iran. President Donald Trump isn’t downplaying the concept like he as soon as did, and there are rising strategic causes to suspect it is likely to be a viable possibility.
Should Trump go there, it would be each an indication that this battle has gone in instructions he didn’t appear to anticipate and that’s has change into an enormous political threat.
Polling performed for the reason that first strikes towards Iran final month suggests the concept of troops on the bottom is a whole nonstarter for Americans general — and even a troublesome promote for the GOP base.
And whereas latest historical past means that base would possibly heat to the concept, at the very least considerably, Trump is pushing his luck with even a lot of these supporters.
But there look like rising causes that at the very least a small quantity of floor forces might be deployed on Iranian soil — whether or not that be to grab Iran’s nuclear supplies; to take over strategically vital Kharg Island, which the administration just lately focused; or to grab territory across the Strait of Hormuz to assist restart the passage of ships carrying oil. (As NCS has reported, capturing the extremely enriched uranium stockpile believed to be deep underground would require a big troop presence, properly past a particular operations footprint.)
Trump has gotten testy with questions concerning the risk in latest days however made clear it’s an possibility he’s reserving, not like 9 months in the past.
We additionally realized over the weekend that the administration is deploying a Marine Expeditionary Unit, a speedy response unit that often consists of 2,500 Marines and sailors, to the Middle East for unexplained causes.
US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz advised Fox News on Sunday that “this isn’t going to be another 2003 Iraq. There are not going to be hundreds of thousands of troops occupying urban areas somewhere.”
But he mentioned the navy is offering choices to Trump “to have forces that are trained, equipped, in position and ready for whatever he chooses to do as commander in chief.”
And Trump isn’t downplaying the likelihood as a lot as he did two weeks in the past, when he described it to the New York Post as a “probably don’t need them” or an “if they were necessary”-type state of affairs.
The American individuals positive appear to hope floor troops are usually not wanted.
A NCS poll performed shortly after the battle started confirmed Americans opposed sending floor troops by a 5-to-1 margin, 60%-12%.
Similarly, a later Quinnipiac University poll put the margin at practically 4-to-1 amongst registered voters: 74%-20%.
In each polls, even Republicans — who’ve in latest months returned to their more hawkish ways from the early twenty first century — opposed the concept by double-digits.
Just 27% of Republicans favored the concept in the NCS ballot; simply 37% of registered GOP voters did so in the Quinnipiac ballot.
And these numbers make sense in context. Polls of Trump’s earlier navy strikes — the June Iran strikes and his ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January — prompt a decent-sized minority of Americans had been OK with temporary navy strikes but often not much more. And opposition to boots on the ground in Venezuela in January was just like the place it is at the moment in Iran.
That might actually change. We’ve seen earlier than how Republicans who beforehand opposed the concept of navy motion can shift their views as soon as Trump pursues these actions.
But it’s additionally fairly clear that the GOP help for Trump’s battle towards Iran, comparable to it exists, is wide but shallow. The NCS ballot confirmed 77% of Republicans supported the early strikes, however solely 37% did so “strongly.”
We’ve additionally seen how the battle is more and more dividing the GOP’s influencer class — a phenomenon that can trickle down to the base over time. Prominent right-wing figures are warning Trump that this battle dangers tearing aside his coalition.
And notably, we’re seeing some congressional Republicans nearly appear to preemptively warn Trump towards placing boots on the bottom.
Sen. Rick Scott of Florida insisted to NCS final week that Trump “has no interest in troops on the ground.” Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee likewise advised NCS that Trump knew there was no “appetite” for such a factor. Others, comparable to Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, are urging Trump to chart a distinct course.
And Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, as traditional, was probably the most colourful, telling Fox News on March 8 that “if he sends in troops, the thud you hear will be me face-planting, because I fainted.”
These Republicans could worry the long-term implications of such a transfer as a lot because the preliminary response from the American public. Boots on the bottom, in any case, would elevate the prospects for a lot of extra US casualties.
It would be the purpose at which this battle dangers taking over the traits of a extra conventional battle, the likes of which Americans have made very clear they need no half.
But public opposition hasn’t stopped Trump earlier than, so why would it now?