The U.S. appears to be positioning around 2,500 Marines near the Strait of Hormuz. This force would most likely be deployed in a “hold and cover” role, rather than a “roam and destroy” ground campaign. As I understand it, it is not credible that they would be conducting sustained missions inland.

For context, during the initial invasion phase of the Iraq War the United States deployed roughly 150,000 troops against a country of about 25 million people. Iran has a population of around 90 million, and its terrain is far less hospitable to invasion. A force of 2,500 Marines is therefore far more consistent with deterrence, maritime security, and rapid-response missions than with any large-scale ground operation.

Ground invasion would bring the death of US hegemony even if we “win” eventually. China/Russia would love for the US to commit seppuku this way.

A ground invasion of Iran would require a force at least as large as what went to Iraq - roughly 150,000 troops. Iran has a similar number of active troops (~500,000), but it is a much larger and more challenging country. Taking all factors into account, such an operation would likely require at minimum 200,000–300,000 U.S. troops, and possibly far more. If Donald Trump wanted a third term, I guess he could attempt something like this.

From a strategic perspective, this scenario would be optimal for China and Russia, as it could bog the U.S. down for years, giving them, and Europe (and the Collective West), time to plan for an increasingly hostile United States. On the other hand, it would give U.S. troops enormous practical experience and a chance to deploy new technologies, especially drones. The conflict would likely be the most modern war in human history, potentially dwarfing the technological impact of the Ukraine-Russia war. That’s not to downplay the Ukraine conflict, which has already been the most revolutionary in terms of drone and hybrid warfare technology since ever.

Ultimately the genie is out of the bottle, the US is now seen as the bad guy and everyone is scrambling to defend themselves before the US looks to take something from them as well. It remains to be seen what the geopolitical landscape will look like in 10 years time.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 13 2026 09:46am

Ya, the US wants to take the threat of nuclear weapons from an insane theocracy that sponsors terrorism around the world. All you Euros better be careful, we might try to do the same to you... if there was any parallel whatsoever, which obviously there is not. Fk there goes the theory

A continent of scared girls telling ghost stories under the covers we've provided them for the past 80 years.

This post was edited by Shadowoffury on Mar 13 2026 09:54am

Double Post, what the hey ~
/edit oh, i was saved from the double post by Shadowoffury, thanks! Jesus loves you!
Snipa take notes lol.

One of the key aspects of the current U.S. adventure is that the government has been weak in preparing its population for this war. In 2025, the U.S. bombed Iran and portrayed it as a quick, decisive action. Now, in 2026, the messaging is mixed: “We attacked Iran because Israel told us to,” “We want regime change,” “We don’t want regime change,” and “Israel was not involved in our decision.”

There are many similarities to the Iraq War: claims that “Iran was weeks away from getting a nuke” and that the strikes were preventive, even though Iran could not realistically threaten the U.S. mainland. This has created a looming credibility issue with the American public. A president who was elected on a mandate of no foreign wars has become, in many ways, the most warlike leader in U.S. history.

Trump's Approval rating is largely irrelevant, it means nothing. However a 9/11 moment would be a massive boost and would pave the way for a 3rd Term and a ground war in Iran. A false flag would likely not be large enough and the US enemies are simply not capable of replicating a 9/11 therefore everything lies within the hands of Donald Trump. He is the driver.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 13 2026 09:58am

to be honest talking with you is quite difficult because you're an inconsistent person who doesnt really track what im saying. so this will very likely be my last reply lol.

when i said i "support" bombing, that was a targeted bombing IF and only IF they appears to be making a nuclear weapon. not hedging at near nuclear levels. i dont support the B2 bombing carried out that started this war.

and you keep interchanging terms like "regime change" without doing any critical analysis. I'm not against "regime change" because i like the iranian regime, or even because i dont want them out. I do want them out. but the only way to do that is to invade. and im against invasion. so my stance has nothing to do with regime change itself, as i told you before, im anti invasion. period. full stop. no boots on the ground. ever for any reason.

then you go into some silly fantasy about smashing every last chance they can enrich uranium, where just a few posts ago you doubted if we can confirm the B2 bombing accomplished that goal. so by proxy that means IF you want all the nuclear capabilities demolished, and we cant trust on bombing with the biggest bomb from the worlds most expensive airplane to do it, then we have to invade. we can't simply bomb. so while im against "regime change" because it calls for invasion, you're in favor of complete de-nuclearization, which DOES require invasion. not limited invasion, not just intel reports and bombing. but a true sweep of any and all areas it could be happening. in a mountainous region with secret bunkers all over the country.

the long and short of it is im anti-invasion, and you're pro-invasion. you might not admit it, i suspect you'll deny it, but you just dont see thats what your words equate to. you're a neocon with no plan, just wants and needs.

"no regime could be worse", we literally knocked off Saddaam and now ISIS runs Iraq lol. remember when you told me "ummmm acctttchually the regime was changed".... but yeah, you're not pedantic lol.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Mar 13 2026 09:59am

I'm consistent. If you can find inconsistencies between my posts, then point them out with direct quotes please, as I have done for your apparent inconsistencies.

You are inconsistent, or atleast unclear. This is why I asked you to define what exactly you meant by "imminent" because in my opinion weeks away from nuclear weapons is obviously imminent.

You are under the mistaken view that regime change is impossible without invasion. This is clearly wrong on account of we've done it before, such as in the case of Libya.

We can't confirm their centrifuges have been damaged beyond repair or that their HEU is not recoverable without surveying it on the ground. Lol how do you expect we're capable of confirming it at present? This does not require an invasion necessarily, but it does require terms which include us being allowed in to make that determination.

You're wrong that I'm pro-invasion, the entire basis for your assumption is some lies you're telling about it being impossible for us to be allowed to confirm the destruction of centrifuges as a term for peace. This is ridiculous. If they commit to not developing nuclear weapons it would be easy for them to do this, they've actually similarly allowed us to confirm they weren't over-enriching uranium in the past lol...

And I didn't say "no regime could be worse" the point of quotation marks is to quote what someone has said, not to change what they have said to suit your needs. What I actually said was "it seems entirely unlikely that any replacement would be worse" see how that works? I quoted what was actually said instead of making something up that changed the meaning.

This post was edited by Shadowoffury on Mar 13 2026 10:25am

iran, the country with which we just did 2 fake rounds of negotiations so that Israel could strike them, who we just dropped countless bombs on, and who we just publicly said need to unconditionally surrender to us and change their regime. that iran is going to then let in the USA to do an inspection of their country?

i must be blissful to be this foolishly ignorant of reality.

Yeah, that is how surrender works. Someone who does not like you agrees to do things they would prefer not to do.

If I could clear up any other simple concepts of human reality for you lmk

you're so trapped in fantasy land that you think we're arguing terms, not probabilities.

first we bomb, then they surrender, then we come in and take all their nuclear materials, that they show us the exact location of, then a new regime takes over, then we're all friend and they're invited to the BBQ.

oh boy, what an astounding level of copium. you might be PARD's #1 plan truster.