Another Quagmire?

Did we learn anything from the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq/Afganistan?

A tired, dirty U.S. soldier sits on rubble with the destruction of a city behind him.

Can the U.S. force regime change in Iran without boots on the ground?

As of early 2026, the U.S. is testing the feasibility of forcing regime change without a sustained ground war through targeted military strikes, massive economic pressure, and supporting internal opposition, a strategy aimed at avoiding traditional “boots on the ground.”

While proponents argue that this can collapse regimes through external shocks, experts and critics emphasize that such actions often lead to quagmires, require immense regional cooperation, and are highly unlikely to succeed without some form of ground-force presence. (BBC).

Methods for Regime Change Without Ground Troops would include targeted, high-intensity strikes to cripple military capabilities, leadership, and infrastructure; intense sanctions-led and diplomatic isolation to cause widespread economic pain, as seen in Iran; and encouraging protesters or disgruntled security forces to act against the government.

The problems and obstacles of forcing regime change without ground troops are that attacks often spark retaliatory strikes from allies or proxies of the target regime, endangering U.S. interests. And history suggests that air strikes and pressure alone rarely topple entrenched regimes without causing immense regional disruption or leading to unforeseen, deeper involvement. Furthermore, even if leadership is decapitated, replacing a regime often requires sustained, long-term commitment, potentially leading to nation-building, a scenario the current strategy aims to avoid, likely because it didn’t previously work well during the War on Terror.

The 2026 Trump administration’s actions are testing the boundaries of the War Powers Resolution. While the president has commander-in-chief authority for limited actions, such as when the U.S. is in danger or under attack, Congress holds the power to declare war, making these actions legally controversial, especially without explicit authorization. The Atlantic Council, February 28, 2026).

“In short, while the U.S. attempts to use air power, technology, and economic tools to bypass the political costs of a ground invasion, achieving a stable, new regime without any, or very limited, ‘boots on the ground’ remains highly uncertain.”

Can the U.S. win a ground war with Iran?

The U.S. possesses the overwhelming force to defeat Iran’s conventional military; a ground war would likely result in a prolonged and costly “quagmire”. (Center for American Progress).

Analysts estimate that a successful ground invasion would require roughly 1.6 million U.S. troops—nearly ten times the peak deployment in Iraq—due to Iran’s large population and mountainous, defensible terrain. In response to the escalating conflict as of early March 2026, the Trump administration has emphasized that its current operations (Operation Epic Fury) are designed to be “surgical” and “not endless”. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that the U.S. aims to avoid “nation-building quagmires” and has not yet committed ground forces. (The Hill).

The U.S. has focused on “regime decapitation,” having recently killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a joint strike with Israel. Experts warn that removing leadership without occupying the ground often creates power vacuums and civil war rather than a stable pro-Western government. Iran’s “ace in the hole” is its network of regional proxies (like Hezbollah) and its ability to disrupt global oil markets by closing the Strait of Hormuz. Even if the U.S. “wins” conventionally, these proxies could inflict significant casualties on U.S. bases throughout the Middle East. (The Hill).

President Trump has not ruled out boots on the ground “if necessary,” though current public support for the strikes remains low at approximately 25-27%.

In summary, while the U.S. could likely achieve a tactical military victory, experts believe a ground war would be disastrous and inconclusive, potentially draining U.S. resources and exposing interests elsewhere in the world. The Washington Post

I asked the above two questions in AI mode and summarized the responses after reading the cited articles.

We’ve been down this road before. I believe it is unconscionable to use human beings for political or financial gain, which, in my opinion, is what the Trump administration is doing. Congress needs to enforce the War Powers Act and initiate impeachment proceedings immediately.

What do you think?