Ground war against Iran would be a fatal miscalculation
By Shadab Asgari
Expert on military
and regional affairs
Remarks by Donald Trump regarding negotiations with Iran and his presentation of a 15-point proposal amount to little more than deception. What the Americans failed to secure on the battlefield, they have repackaged in their proposals, terms that are unacceptable to Iran.
In response, Iran, in addition to its previously stated preconditions, particularly the imperative of preserving its defensive and military capabilities, has advanced five new conditions for ending the war. At the same time, Trump has issued threatening statements, asserting that should Iran reject his proposals, it would face far harsher military conditions. Yet the international community no longer takes his rhetoric at face value. Given his rapid shifts in position, global public opinion now looks to Iran’s response as the primary reference point for assessing the trajectory of the conflict. In effect, whenever Trump speaks about the war, observers await Tehran’s reaction and weigh developments accordingly.
It appears that Trump’s statements in the weeks since the outbreak of hostilities are largely geared toward psychological operations. He is attempting to compensate, through bluffing and narrative-building, for what he has failed to achieve on the battlefield. The reality is that Trump, the Zionist regime, and many of their supporting states have, over the past three to four weeks of the imposed war against Iran, deployed their full military capacity in an effort to defeat the country. They now lack any meaningful instruments to secure military superiority. Under such circumstances, Trump has resorted to what may be described as “talk therapy,” seeking to project an image of victory and compel others to accept his positions. In modern warfare, psychological operations and dominance in the media sphere constitute a critical dimension of victory, and Trump is clearly attempting to leverage this domain to rationalize setbacks on the ground and advance his objectives.
At the same time, Trump’s repetitive negotiating playbook has worn thin. Public opinion in Iran, in particular, harbors no favorable memory of such overtures. When the United States has twice launched attacks on Iran in the midst of negotiations, and, in this instance, has even resorted to targeting the country’s leadership, the continuation of talks holds no real meaning in the eyes of the Iranian people. These negotiations are widely perceived as instruments of deception and psychological maneuvering, potentially serving as a prelude to further acts of duplicity or military escalation. Trump appears intent either on extracting concessions through this process or on using it to lay the groundwork for another round of military operations.
However, the Iranian people have already made their position unmistakably clear, both on the ground and in the streets. Through their mass and resolute presence, they have called for the continuation of the struggle until the aggressor is punished and full victory is secured.
At present, the balance of military advantage on the battlefield favors Iran. One of the enemy’s most pressing challenges lies in sustaining its air defense systems. Maintaining these systems imposes significant costs, as the interceptor missiles they rely on are several times more expensive than Iranian drones.
Page 2