Nournews: The U.S. plan to deploy ground forces is less a tactical choice on the battlefield and more a clear sign of the enemy’s desperation in achieving its objectives using its primary operational advantage—air power. This decision marks a step beyond controlled or limited warfare and enters a level of confrontation capable of altering the entire regional security structure. Experience over the past month shows that relying solely on air power has not achieved strategic goals and has pushed the opposing side toward riskier and more complex options.
While most military experts consider a ground operation scenario a pre-failed decision, if the U.S. enters the ground phase, it represents a complete change in the rules of the game: warfare would shift from long-distance, remote operations to direct, attritional, and multi-layered conflict. This is precisely the point where “regionalization of the war” moves from theoretical analysis to established field reality.
Why did the late Leader of the Islamic Revolution equate the start of a war with its regionalization? From the very beginning, even before U.S. and Israeli aggression toward Iran, he emphasized that any confrontation with Iran would rapidly extend beyond national borders, based on a deep understanding of the intertwined network of interests, infrastructure, and U.S. military presence in the region.
The multiple U.S. military, security, and communication bases in countries surrounding Iran effectively turn these states into part of the operational theater. When these capacities are used to attack Iran, they naturally become legitimate targets in Iran’s defensive and legal logic. This is the point where a limited confrontation escalates into a regional conflict. Iran’s counteractions over recent weeks show adherence to this doctrine: targeting the source of the threat not only sends a clear message to the adversary but also significantly increases the costs of escalation. Therefore, regionalization of the war—whether in the air or under a ground operation scenario—should be considered a confirmed process, not a future possibility.
Iran’s Strategic Approach Confirmed; Security Warning on War Escalation
A security official speaking to Nournews noted that any U.S. ground war would not be a limited action but the start of a chain of reactions, expanding the conflict to areas from which attacks against Iran originate. This position confirms that any attempt to escalate the war naturally leads to loss of control for primary actors and the involvement of multiple regional players—precisely the classic definition of “regionalization of war.”
Regionalization of War: From Strategic Prediction to Operational Reality
Recent developments show that regionalization is no longer a mere analytical assumption but a direct result of using U.S. military and political infrastructure in the region. The presence of multiple bases in surrounding countries effectively turns them into part of the operational environment. Using these capacities to attack Iran naturally legitimizes Iran’s countermeasures, in both air and ground scenarios. This chain of responses turns the war from a bilateral confrontation into a multi-layered regional conflict, where the line between the geography of war and political boundaries effectively disappears.
Ground War: Entering a Prolonged and Asymmetric Battlefield
If a ground war scenario materializes, the U.S. and its allies would face conditions fundamentally different from air-focused, technology-driven warfare. In ground combat, the main advantages lie not in firepower but in geographical depth, human resources, field experience, and long-term organizational capability.
Iran, with a large, trained, and experienced ground force, holds significant advantages in this domain. These forces, in addition to their precise knowledge of operational geography, benefit from asymmetric warfare experience—a decisive factor in long, attritional conflicts. In such circumstances, ground war for the aggressor is not a short-term operation but a prolonged, costly, and unpredictable process, far more complex than air warfare.
The Strait of Hormuz: The Nexus of Security and Global Economy
Given Iran’s declaration that the Strait of Hormuz would be completely blocked in the event of a U.S. ground attack, the economic dimension of ground warfare also comes into play. Iran’s strategic position and control over one of the world’s most vital energy chokepoints mean that any escalation would immediately impact global markets. Rising oil prices, energy market instability, and concerns about disruptions in global supply chains show that a ground war could have consequences far beyond the battlefield, making the Strait of Hormuz a critical “decision-making chokepoint” where military and economic calculations converge.
The Resistance Front: Multi-Front Battlefield Expansion
A key variable in a ground war scenario is the role of the Resistance Front. This network, which has evolved into a multi-layered and coordinated structure, can expand the battlefield from a limited geography to multiple active points across the region. This would force adversaries to divide their military capacity across several fronts, naturally reducing operational focus and increasing vulnerability. In this scenario, war moves from linear confrontation to a networked, attritional engagement.
Ground Assault and Strategic Deadlock
A U.S. ground war scenario does not signal superiority but marks entry into a stage of strategic complexity and deadlock. The combination of Iran’s ground advantages, the strategic location of the Strait of Hormuz, and the operational capacity of the Resistance Front creates conditions that make any ground phase a costly, multi-layered decision. In this context, the regionalization of the war is not a future probability but a confirmed outcome of the expanded conflict. Ground warfare is therefore not the end of the crisis but the beginning of a phase in which costs, actors, and consequences escalate exponentially, making battlefield control far more difficult.
NOURNEWS