WASHINGTON (Azat TV) – As the United States’ military campaign against Iran, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, continues into its second week in early March 2026, the pressing question of whether Washington will deploy ground troops, or ‘boots on the ground,’ remains a central point of concern for regional stability and international observers. The escalation has already resulted in significant casualties on both sides and growing tensions across the Middle East, prompting experts to weigh the potential ramifications of a deeper US military involvement.
The US initiated a major military campaign against Iran on a Saturday preceding March 4, 2026, launching strikes across the country. In response, Iran has carried out counterattacks, deploying missiles and drones against Israel and US assets in the region. According to the Iranian Red Crescent, at least 787 people have been killed in Iran. Tragically, one of the deadliest incidents reported involved a strike on an elementary school for girls in the southeastern city of Minab, which killed at least 165 students. On the US side, six American service members have been killed in action and 18 injured. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that a projectile breached air defenses and struck a fortified US military position, leading to casualties, with reports indicating the incident occurred in Kuwait.
The Legality of US Military Action and War Powers
The constitutionality of the US military action without a formal declaration of war has drawn scrutiny. While the US Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war, the President, as commander-in-chief, holds authority to respond to immediate threats. David Schultz, a professor at Hamline University, highlighted to Al Jazeera that the US has not formally declared war since World War II, with conflicts like Vietnam and Iraq proceeding without such a declaration. This framework allows modern presidents to bypass formal declarations by framing military actions as defensive or emergency measures.
In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which aims to limit unilateral presidential military action to 60 days and requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of hostilities. President Donald Trump informed Congress of the strikes, citing an ‘untenable’ threat from Iran despite ongoing diplomatic efforts mediated by Oman, which had suggested a deal was close. Democratic lawmakers have since challenged the administration’s justification and expressed concerns about potential violations of the resolution. Paul Quirk, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia, noted that the distinction between an ‘attack’ and a ‘war’ often hinges on duration and intensity; if the strikes continue for weeks or months, it will likely be considered a war in practice.
Administration’s Stated Objectives and Inconsistencies
The Trump administration has presented several rationales for the attacks. President Trump and Vice President JD Vance explicitly stated a primary goal is to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. However, the administration has not provided evidence to support claims that Iran was nearing a nuclear weapon, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stating as recently as March 3, 2026, that it had no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Another stated reason was preemptive defense, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggesting the US acted to prevent an imminent Israeli strike on Iran, thereby mitigating US casualties. Yet, President Trump later contradicted Rubio, stating the US attacked because he believed Tehran intended to strike first, leading experts like Christopher Preble of the Stimson Center to note the administration’s inconsistent messaging. President Trump has also openly called for regime change, urging the Iranian people to ‘take over’ their government, and has aimed to dismantle Iranian support for groups like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas.
The Prospect of US ‘Boots on the Ground’
Despite relying on air and naval strikes so far, President Trump has not ruled out deploying US ground troops in Iran, stating he would ‘never say never’ and that the administration would do ‘whatever is necessary.’ Experts, however, caution against such a move. Christopher Preble argued that air strikes alone are unlikely to permanently end Iran’s nuclear program, which Tehran maintains is peaceful, as countries can always reconstitute their capabilities.
A ground operation would present an immense challenge. Preble highlighted that Iran is three to four times larger than Iraq was during the 2003 invasion. He explained that the US never had sufficient troops to fully pacify Iraq, and it currently lacks the troop numbers to prevent a nation the size of Iran from descending into chaos. The 2003 Iraq invasion, while quickly toppling Saddam Hussein, led to a years-long insurgency requiring over 150,000 American troops at its peak. Experts warn that any ground operation in Iran would be ‘extraordinarily costly and potentially very protracted,’ making the Iraq mission ‘look simple by comparison,’ with severe consequences primarily for the Iranian people but also for American service members.
Sustainability of High-Tempo Operations
The duration of high-tempo air operations depends on military resources, funding, and political will. Lawmakers could compel the Trump administration to scale back or end operations by passing a resolution, though the ability of Democrats to sway enough Republicans in a narrowly divided Congress remains uncertain. Military capacity is also a limiting factor, as stockpiles of missiles and precision-guided munitions are finite and require active replenishment by defense contractors.
The ongoing US military campaign against Iran, while currently limited to air and naval strikes, faces significant challenges regarding its objectives and the potential for a ground invasion. The prospect of deploying ‘boots on the ground’ raises serious questions about the feasibility, cost, and long-term consequences of such an intervention, indicating a potential quagmire far exceeding previous US military engagements in the region.