Iran War: What happens if US President Donald Trump sends in US troops? | The Global Story
War gaming expert Elan Goldenberg discusses potential US military scenarios against Iran, analyzing options from seizing key islands to regime change. He argues that most military escalations lead to prolonged conflict rather than decisive outcomes, with Iran responding by raising costs through attacks on regional oil infrastructure and blocking shipping lanes.
Summary
Former White House and Pentagon adviser Elan Goldenberg, who conducted war games predicting Iran conflict scenarios, analyzes current US military options against Iran. He explains that most war games began with Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear program, followed by proportional Iranian responses designed to avoid full US involvement. However, once the US becomes directly engaged, Iran shifts from restraint to imposing maximum costs, including attacks on regional allies and oil infrastructure. Goldenberg notes that Iran has successfully blocked the Strait of Hormuz while maintaining its own oil exports, actually doubling its oil revenue during the conflict - something no war game predicted. He evaluates several US military options: seizing Kharg Island could cut Iranian oil exports by 90% but would likely escalate rather than end the conflict; special forces operations to seize uranium stockpiles from central Iran would be extremely risky and complex, requiring hundreds or thousands of troops to hold territory for extended periods; full-scale invasion would require up to a million troops given Iran's 90 million population, making it implausible. Regarding regime change, Goldenberg argues that killing Iran's leadership under wartime conditions empowered hardliners rather than reformists who might have emerged through natural succession. For deescalation, he recommends clear, realistic terms: the US and Israel stop military operations in exchange for Iran not restarting its nuclear program, ceasing attacks on neighbors, and allowing shipping through Hormuz. He defends the Iran nuclear deal as the best available option and warns that Trump's muscular approach, while achieving some tactical successes, eventually leads to major conflicts. Most war games ended either in early deescalation or a 1990s Iraq-style outcome where Iran's military is degraded but the regime survives, requiring permanent US forces for containment while facing a more aggressive Iran with lowered thresholds for regional attacks.
Key Insights
- Iran has managed to cut off the Strait of Hormuz without stopping their own oil shipments, using drones, missiles, and coastal defenses to create enough risk that others won't ship through while Iran can still export its own oil, actually doubling its oil revenue during the war
- Most war games began with Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear program, with Iran responding proportionally while trying to avoid full US involvement, since US engagement would represent an existential threat unlike Israeli-only attacks
- A special forces operation to seize Iran's enriched uranium from Esfahan would require hundreds or thousands of troops to hold a perimeter for hours or days in central Iran, hundreds of miles inland, making it extremely risky and complex compared to quick raids like the bin Laden operation
- By killing Iran's 86-year-old Supreme Leader under wartime conditions, the US forced the system to choose his successor under maximum duress, empowering hardliners and making it almost guaranteed they would choose someone more militant rather than allowing reformists to emerge through natural succession
- The most common war game outcomes were either early deescalation or a 1990s Saddam Hussein scenario where Iran's military is degraded but the regime survives, requiring permanent US forces for containment while facing a more aggressive Iran with lowered thresholds for regional attacks
Topics
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to Access