Interview: U.S. Ground Troop Deployment in Iran Becomes More Likely as War Drags On

1. The ongoing war in the Persian Gulf has reached a pivotal stage, with uncertainty about whether the conflict will de-escalate or escalate, potentially involving a U.S. ground invasion. Daniel Levy, president of the U.S./Middle East Project (USMEP) and experienced Israeli peace negotiator, suggests that the most feasible pathway to a ceasefire would involve diplomatic backchannels ensuring a mutual and simultaneous de-escalation among the U.S., Iran, and Israel[para. 1].

2. Levy proposes that for a ceasefire, the U.S. would need to declare victory and halt its military strikes, while Iran would also claim victory and stop its responses, with Israel likewise refraining from attacks. This approach hinges on all parties being able to present de-escalation as a “win” to their domestic audiences[para. 2].

3. Despite this diplomatic off-ramp being possible, Levy warns of three potential scenarios for U.S. ground involvement: seizing Iranian oil assets near the Strait of Hormuz or Kharg Island, carrying out special operations to eliminate enriched uranium stockpiles, or supporting an insurgency inside Iran, especially through Kurdish forces. He stresses that prolonged warfare raises the chances of U.S. ground intervention[para. 3][para. 4].

4. Levy’s background as a British-born dual UK-Israeli citizen and highly experienced negotiator in several Israeli-Palestinian peace processes adds weight to his analysis. His insights derive from years of policy work and drafting unofficial peace initiatives such as the Geneva Initiative[para. 5].

5. When questioned about U.S. intentions regarding ceasefire, Levy describes ongoing communications between the U.S. and Iran through third-party diplomatic channels. However, he notes that significant negotiations are not in play. Instead, the war has become a contest of mutual endurance, testing the ability of the U.S. to withstand domestic and economic pressures and of Iran to withstand continuous military strikes targeting its governance and security infrastructure[para. 6][para. 7].

6. Levy sees two ceasefire outcomes: either detailed negotiations covering broader agreements and future discussions, or a simpler, mutual cessation of hostilities through backchannels. He favors the latter but criticizes the U.S. president for lacking strategy, being unpredictable, and making decisions based on incomplete information, heavily influenced by Israeli interests[para. 9][para. 10][para. 11].

7. On the prospect of U.S. ground deployment, Levy reiterates his three scenarios: (1) seizing oil assets along the Strait of Hormuz, (2) conducting special operations against enriched uranium stockpiles, and (3) backing ethnically based insurgencies, particularly involving Kurds. Any ground operation would increase risks for the U.S. and could escalate further, a move unpopular with the American public and not yet embraced by President Trump[para. 13][para. 14][para. 15][para. 16].

8. Regarding Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Levy expects Iran to maintain control so long as U.S. attacks persist. The U.S. lacks a clear solution, and only a political—not military—settlement is likely in the medium term. While Gulf nations are diverting oil via pipelines to the Red Sea, capacity is limited, and longer-term solutions like building more pipelines are not viable during the current conflict. Houthi involvement may further threaten alternative shipping lanes[para. 18][para. 19][para. 20][para. 21].

9. On coalition-building for securing the Strait of Hormuz, Trump’s calls for allied support have been rejected due to lack of a viable plan and broader disillusionment with U.S. leadership. Trump’s rhetoric has increased tensions, undermining alliances with Europe and Asian partners, and contributing to a strategic rift, especially as resources are diverted from the Ukraine conflict to the Middle East. This has also benefitted Russia, with sanctions lifted on Russian oil[para. 23][para. 24][para. 25][para. 26].

10. The most striking diplomatic signal has been Trump’s public declaration that the U.S. does not need allied help, exacerbating divisions with NATO and other defense partners, and signaling a shift in U.S. global military posture[para. 28].