If the newest batch of 10,000 is approved, we're up to 17,000 combat troops deployed for this. (Marines there as of Mar 27, another 3,500 in about two weeks, and then at least 1 battalion of the 82nd Airborne, plus another 10,000 requested)
I have heard other units getting pre-mobilization / warnings.
(This would not nearly be enough troops for large scale ground conflict, but it might be enough to go into the island tunnels looking for drones and ballistic missiles while the US tries to hold open the straight by force for... However long that takes)
This is all fine and well, but misses one little detail: drones. In the past conflicts US troops were more or less unreachable for the enemy unless they were advancing on the ground in a challenging terrain like dense jungles or mountains, where an enemy could ambush them. Other then that, US had air superiority, overwhelming firepower and excellent reconnaissance.
After the war in Ukraine things are very different. US troops are not safe as long as they are reachable by an FPV done, i.e., the enemy has to only make it ~20km to US positions. Given the area and terrain in Iran this will be happening all the time. So any troops positioned on Iran's territory will be under constant attacks by FPV drones. This means heavy casualties.
But even if the US forces will manage to clear the FPVs, this is still not enough, because there are dozens of other types of winged long range drones, the most famous being of course Shahed. They are less precise and not so deadly for the troops. They are also much easier to intercept. But that means that you effectively can't set up a safe stationary base, because it will be attacked by hundreds of drones from hundreds of miles away 24x7. There is not enough interceptors to stop that.
This means that a new approach will have to be used by US armed forces which they never tried before. This guarantees heavy losses on the initial stage which will raise a real political shitstorm back home. It looks like the current administration doesn't particularly care about that, but chances are they will not be able to contain the consequences.
> This is all fine and well, but misses one little detail: drones.
That's why A-10s are patrolling the 6 mile wide straight for 2 hours a flight. They can take out the larger Iranian drones much cheaper than any other platform we have. The small dones can't get very far and the US is exceptional at electronic warfare. But that doesn't really change anything, it just maintains the status quo of the straight being too risky for oil tanker insurers.
Ultimately, even if the US goes into the island tunnels after the ballistic missiles and larger drones, it would take huge sums of money to try and keep it open militarily for... who knows how long.
If the newest batch of 10,000 is approved, we're up to 17,000 combat troops deployed for this. (Marines there as of Mar 27, another 3,500 in about two weeks, and then at least 1 battalion of the 82nd Airborne, plus another 10,000 requested)
I have heard other units getting pre-mobilization / warnings.
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/middle_east/2026-03-27/82nd...
(This would not nearly be enough troops for large scale ground conflict, but it might be enough to go into the island tunnels looking for drones and ballistic missiles while the US tries to hold open the straight by force for... However long that takes)
This is all fine and well, but misses one little detail: drones. In the past conflicts US troops were more or less unreachable for the enemy unless they were advancing on the ground in a challenging terrain like dense jungles or mountains, where an enemy could ambush them. Other then that, US had air superiority, overwhelming firepower and excellent reconnaissance.
After the war in Ukraine things are very different. US troops are not safe as long as they are reachable by an FPV done, i.e., the enemy has to only make it ~20km to US positions. Given the area and terrain in Iran this will be happening all the time. So any troops positioned on Iran's territory will be under constant attacks by FPV drones. This means heavy casualties.
But even if the US forces will manage to clear the FPVs, this is still not enough, because there are dozens of other types of winged long range drones, the most famous being of course Shahed. They are less precise and not so deadly for the troops. They are also much easier to intercept. But that means that you effectively can't set up a safe stationary base, because it will be attacked by hundreds of drones from hundreds of miles away 24x7. There is not enough interceptors to stop that.
This means that a new approach will have to be used by US armed forces which they never tried before. This guarantees heavy losses on the initial stage which will raise a real political shitstorm back home. It looks like the current administration doesn't particularly care about that, but chances are they will not be able to contain the consequences.
> This is all fine and well, but misses one little detail: drones.
That's why A-10s are patrolling the 6 mile wide straight for 2 hours a flight. They can take out the larger Iranian drones much cheaper than any other platform we have. The small dones can't get very far and the US is exceptional at electronic warfare. But that doesn't really change anything, it just maintains the status quo of the straight being too risky for oil tanker insurers.
Ultimately, even if the US goes into the island tunnels after the ballistic missiles and larger drones, it would take huge sums of money to try and keep it open militarily for... who knows how long.
Fwiw, peak deployments to Afghanistan was ~100k troops. Iran is ~2x the land mass and population.
IRGC is also 10x more advanced than whatever forces were in Afganistan.