John Mearsheimer:

There is much talk about President Trump preparing to launch a ground attack against Iran. In the media discourse, much is made of the fact we have about 50,000 troops in the region. See the three articles below.

One might think those are all combat troops and we therefore have roughly three combat divisions available to invade Iran. But that is not true.

Until recently, there were about 40,000 US troops in the region, which were mainly a mixture of Air Force, Army, and Navy forces. Very importantly, there were few Army or Marine combat troops, although there were certainly some special forces. But they are of little use for major combat operations, for which you need organized combat units like battalions, brigades, regiments, and divisions.

In essence, until recently, there was hardly any organized ground power in the Middle East, which is what you need to invade and hold Iranian territory. As Napoleon was known to say: “God is on the side of the big battalions”

President Troop has recently sent about 2,000 combat troops from the 82^nd Airborne Division to the Middle East as well as the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) comprised of about 2,500 combat troops. There is another MEU – the 11^th – on its way to the Middle East from California, which I assume will add another 2,500 combat troops. That MEU is not expected to arrive until mid-April. That means there will be a total of roughly 7,000 combat troops organized in combat units after mid-April, but 4,500 before then.

That is a tiny force with little chance of conquering and holding Iranian territory, especially when you consider that: 1) all these units are light infantry, 2) they have not prepared to fight this particular war and are doing it on the fly, 3) supporting them logistically when they are in combat will be very difficult, 4) Iran has mobilized an army of about a million men and is lying in wait, 5) the Iranian army is likely to put up fierce resistance as not only will it be defending sacred territory, but the fighting forces will surely understand they are facing an existential threat, 6) the skies over the US troops are likely to be filled with deadly drones – think Ukraine where it is hard for either side’s soldiers to move in the open without getting killed, 7) Iranian ballistic missiles, rockets, and artillery will be directed at the US forces.

Nadaljujte z branjem→

Scenarij 3 se zdi najbolj realističen. 

V nobenem scenariju pa ni omenjena usoda Izraela. Izraelske oblasti bi se v tem trenutku morale najbolj bati za eksistenco njihove države.

To predict what will happen, let’s start by ruling out a few scenarios:

1. We are unlikely to see the use of nuclear weapons. First, Israel is unlikely to use them; the U.S. wouldn’t allow it, and more importantly, nukes wouldn’t completely eliminate Iran. Instead, it would risk a counter-strike from Iranian nuclear weapons (which they likely already possess). As for Iran, they won’t be the first to use them. There’s simply no need. We can likely rule out this worst-case, unpredictable risk.
2. The U.S. will not launch a large-scale war on Iranian mainland. They simply can’t afford it.
3. The U.S. will not retreat just yet. Many are anticipating a TACO, but taco now is meaningless. A true “TACO” would mean handing control of the Strait of Hormuz over to Iran—a “Grand TACO,” if you will. It’s too early to give up.
4. Israel will not back down. Stopping now would mean all previous efforts were in vain; they won’t get another chance.
5. As long as there is no regime change, Iran will not back down either. As I’ve discussed before, since they’ve already played their biggest card—Hormuz—they won’t fold easily. Folding means certain death for top IRGC people; staying in the game at least offers a chance at survival.

Once we exclude these five possibilities and establish these constraints, the path forward becomes relatively clear.

First, the U.S. will likely engage in island-seizing operations, hoping to control the situation through small-scale, high-leverage ground combat.

From there, three possibilities emerge:

• Scenario 1: The battle goes smoothly and concludes in days. Iran is forced to the negotiating table, or regime change occurs. The U.S. quickly gains control of the situation.
• Scenario 2: The fighting is grueling and protracted, but the U.S. eventually secures the objective and stabilizes the situation.
• Scenario 3: The fighting is exceptionally difficult. The U.S. either fails to take the objective or takes it but finds it impossible to defend, eventually forcing a withdrawal. This would complete the “Grand TACO.” Trump would shrug his shoulders and take the exit, claiming the battle was simply unwinnable.

Aside from Scenario 1, both Scenarios 2 and 3 would inflict massive pain on the global economic order.

I personally think scenario 3 is the most likely.

In the last 10 days or so, the US war machine unleashed upon all of us its most effective weapon of mass destruction: the coordinated lie.

By claiming negotiations are going on they mostly killed the meaning of this war for the vast majority of humanity – including people in the anti-colonial camp.

This is precisely what they did to the Palestinian struggle with the ceasefire agreement. Once it was announced, the pro-Palestine movement worldwide collapsed and disappeared. Palestine was abandoned and Palestinians were forgotten.

Millions of people went from being involved and enthused to numb and indifferent. It happened in one hour. That’s how destructive this power is.

The US has the consciousness equivalent of nuclear bombs, and it never hesitates using them. In fact, its very existence depends of constantly dropping them. 

They are trying to do the same to the Iran war now; to kill its spirit and the meaning. To minimise, muddle and depoliticize it. To defile it.

Only this time, the power they are fighting is not mostly helpless us or ‘the markets’. It is Iran’s military and Revolutionary Guard Corps.

And I’m telling you: if anyone believes Iran (and the Axis) is returning to just sitting passively and waiting for the next time it is convenient for Israel and the US to attack, they are painfully mistaken.

I’ve said it since day 1 of this, and I’ll say it again: this war will not end before monumental political changes materialized in West Asia. Monumental.

No country or institution identified with the colonial West is safe, will be safe, or will remain the same as before, and many won’t survive this.

Don’t succumb to the immense lie machine. This is not a limited, short-term conflict. This is West Asia’s War of Liberation. This is what all my senses are telling me.

The West will keep on lying and lying to shape perception for its needs till reality has been made 100% clear for everyone, at which point they will have no more power at all.  What they will do after that is unknown because they have no plan other than murdering, exploiting and lying.

Galloway: When you talk about the “international community,” do you mean Washington, London, Tel Aviv, and Brussels? That’s not the whole world.

Morgan: Then who is the world, in your view? Do you support Iran?

Galloway: Listen carefully… China stands with Iran, Russia stands with Iran, Brazil stands with Iran, South Africa stands with Iran, Indonesia stands with Iran, Pakistan stands with Iran — and India deals with Iran.

When did you, Piers Morgan, gain the right to decide that seven-eighths of the world’s population don’t matter just because you dislike their systems?

These are the majority of the planet’s people, and they reject your so-called rules-based order — one that allows you to kill Palestinians while lecturing the world about human rights.

Morgan: I’m not saying they don’t matter. I’m saying I’d rather live in a liberal democracy that guarantees freedom of speech than under a brutal dictatorship.

Galloway (interrupting): You’re free to choose where you live — but you’re not free to destroy the rest of the world because they don’t live the way you do. That’s your “rules-based international order” — it’s the law of the jungle.

Tole spodaj je najboljši opis tega, kar se nam bo zgodilo, če Trump ne prekine te vojne takoj. Prihaja kot snežni plaz, ki ga vsi opazujejo in podcenjujejo, misleč, da je nekako pod kontrolo in da ne bo dosegel njih. Dokler ni prepozno…

Ko zmanjka petina nafte, nastopi racioniranje na črpalkah, ampak to še nekako gre. Toda ko zmanjka tretjina umetnih gnojil, ni setve in ni hrane za tretjino sveta. Ko zmanjka petina LNG plina, Nizozemske tople grede več ne more pridelovati zelenjave. Ko zmanjka tretjina helija, se tajvanska proizvodnja čipov zaustavi. Ko zmanjka skoraj polovica žvepla, izpade skoraj polovica predelave kritičnih materialov (litij, nikelj, kobalt, redke zemeljske kovine (REE), grafit, baker, uran, fosfati), ki so ključni za sodobne proizvode visoke tehnologije (baterije) in proizvodnjo umetnih gnojil. 

Vse to vemo, pa vendar se zdi, da ves svet ležerno opazuje in podcenjuje ta plaz, ki se vali nad nas.

This is a perfect illustration of how we perceive the Hormuz risk.

Everyone is seeing the avalanche coming, yet everyone thinks that somehow it is under control… it isn’t.

There is no plan. No alternative routes that can scale fast enough… Hormuz opened or closed is all that matters.

The current avalanche is so big and dangerous that markets think this will resolve quickly due to the heavy economic costs… it won’t.

One month in, we hear reports that this operation might take from a few weeks to six months, to years… the avalanche will hit much earlier

Within a few weeks:

– Taiwan runs out of LNG -> no AI

– Fertilizer supplies are getting decimated -> no food

– Japan, Europe, Australia run out of diesel

The only thing keeping markets afloat is an unreasonably high amount of hopium… once it’s gone, expect a violent rerating

To pomeni zaprtje Bab El-Mandeb (prehoda v Rdeče morje), to pomeni 7 milijonov sodčkov/dan manj savdske nafte (ko bodo onesposobili savdski terminal Yanbu; leta 2019 so ga že) in to pomeni podaljšanje plovnih poti med Azijo in Evropo za 4 do 6 tednov.

Izrael ima zdaj odprte tri fronte: na severu Hezbolah, iz vzhoda Irana in na jugu Hutije. Pri čemer je ostal brez radarjev in so njegove kapacitete protizračne obrambe na kritičnem minimumu.

In Hutiji so žilavi. Pred tem so premagali koalicijske sile Savdske Arabije, ZAE in ostalih zalivskih držav in pred tem so prisilili Trumpa v premirje in umik ameriške vojaške flote. Poglejte spodnji zapis.

Houthis Are Back: How an Improvised Force Humiliated Regional and Global Powers

On March 27, 2026, the Houthis announced their entry into the ongoing war alongside Iran by launching ballistic missiles toward Israel, the first such direct involvement in the current conflict.

This move raises a deeper question:

what does it truly signify?

These Yemeni rebels have not only survived one of the largest Arab military coalitions in modern history but defeated it in humiliating fashion. They forced Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to retreat in panic once their vital infrastructure came under direct attack.

What began as an internal civil war in 2015 evolved into a global masterclass in asymmetric warfare, oriented by Iranian strategists.

Neither overwhelming air superiority, a total naval blockade, nor a Western-led fleet of nearly 30 warships with air support could silence Houthi launches.

Instead, the rebels absorbed years of intense bombing, preserved, and even expanded, their offensive capabilities, and fielded an Iranian-adapted arsenal sophisticated enough to threaten F-35 stealth fighters.

A growing portion of their weaponry is now assembled or manufactured locally in Yemen.

This resilience traces back to 2015 and the Saudi-led Operation Decisive Storm, which intervened in Yemen’s civil war.

The coalition initially included ten countries led by Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. It deployed more than 185 combat aircraft (including F-15s, F-16s, Eurofighters, and Mirages), mobilized around 150,000 ground troops (with significant Sudanese contingents), enforced a complete naval blockade, and received logistical and intelligence support from the United States, United Kingdom, and France.

On paper, it was one of the most formidable Arab military forces assembled in decades.

Yet the coalition failed. The rugged, mountainous terrain of northern Yemen favored Houthi guerrilla tactics and ambushes, while low-cost Iranian-supplied drones and missiles turned billion-dollar targets into easy prey.

The Houthis did not need to win conventional battles, they simply needed to strike where it hurt most. And they did.

US Seeking “End” to its Own War on Iran Will Lead to a “Pause” at Best.

The primary long-term goal of the US is toppling Iran and stopping the flow of energy from Iran and the rest of the region to China.

The US will settle temporarily for destroying as much of Iran’s military and civilian infrastructure as possible within the operational window US munition stockpiles allow just as it did last year.

The US can still impose a blockade on Iranian-approved shipping through the Strait of Hormuz during and then continuing after the end of this phase of the ongoing war.

The US will simply pause, reorganize, rearm, and prepare for the next phase – just like the US did to attack, degrade, destabilize, and eventually defeat Iraq from the 1990s to 2003, or Syria from 2011 to 2024 or the previous US attack on Iran just last year leading to this attack taking place now.

In other words, a failure at this juncture, or following last year’s attacks on Iran, does not mean a failure overall.

US claims of seeking to end its war on Iran could also simply be a distraction ahead of greater escalation still – the US could pose as “ending” its hostilities only to have its proxy Israel cite “US abandonment” as a pretext for up to and including the use of nuclear weapons against Iran helping further shape events favoring a US-preferred outcome while affording the US plausible deniability.

A potential US success in Iran will put in danger the remaining members of the multipolar world – US success anywhere means greater danger for everyone everywhere;

This process will continue indefinitely until the US succeeds or multipolarism finally displaces/neutralizes US unipolar hegemony and the means by which it threatens the multipolar world.

Iran and the rest of the world will only be safe when the US is not only no longer attacking Iran and other nations, but no longer has credible capabilities to do so – either because they have been significantly degraded, and/or because the multipolar world’s ability to defend itself has significantly expanded.