The Strategic Relevance of Land Forces in Modern Warfare

The United States may need to deploy ground forces in its strategic confrontation with Iran, despite ongoing reliance on airpower and precision strikes, as current military efforts have failed to achieve key objectives, according to analysis published by War on the Rocks.

The analysis argues that U.S.-Israeli efforts centered on decapitation strikes and air dominance have not succeeded in compelling Iran to alter its behavior or abandon its regional influence, leaving Washington facing difficult choices about escalation. While a fragile ceasefire and a potential naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz remain in play, the report highlights that the continued relevance of land forces in 21st-century warfare is increasingly evident, even as technological advantages dominate strategic planning.

Limitations of Airpower-Centric Strategy

The report observes that despite superior intelligence, surveillance, and precision-guided munitions, repeated U.S. And Israeli strikes targeting Iranian leadership and military infrastructure have not degraded Iran’s ability to project power through proxy networks or advance its nuclear program. These operations, while tactically effective in isolated instances, have failed to produce strategic outcomes such as deterrence, compliance, or regime-level behavioral change.

This mirrors broader trends in modern conflict where adversaries disperse capabilities, harden critical assets, and rely on asymmetric responses that diminish the impact of high-tech air campaigns. The analysis notes that Iran has adapted to years of targeted killings and airstrikes by decentralizing command structures, burying facilities, and increasing reliance on indigenous missile production and regional alliances.

Ground Forces as a Contingent Option

Given the shortcomings of current approaches, the report suggests that U.S. Planners are reconsidering the conditions under which ground troops might be introduced into the conflict theater. While no decision has been made to commit large-scale forces, internal assessments are examining how such forces could be employed — whether for securing key infrastructure, conducting limited raids, or supporting partner forces in contested zones.

The analysis emphasizes that any deployment would likely be narrowly tailored and mission-specific, reflecting lessons from recent wars where large-scale occupations proved unsustainable. Instead, the focus is on how small, agile units could complement air and naval operations in high-risk environments such as the Persian Gulf or eastern Syria, where Iranian influence remains entrenched.

Strategic Uncertainties and Regional Risks

Even as military options are debated, significant uncertainties persist. A tenuous ceasefire between Iranian-backed groups and regional actors holds unevenly across flashpoints like Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon, raising concerns about sudden escalation. Simultaneously, the possibility of a U.S.-led naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz — a chokepoint through which roughly 20% of global oil passes — remains under discussion, though such a move risks triggering broader confrontation.

The report warns that neither airpower alone nor the threat of blockade is likely to coercively alter Iran’s calculus without credible follow-on capabilities. It cites historical precedents where adversaries absorbed punitive strikes while maintaining strategic resilience, particularly when domestic legitimacy and external support networks remained intact.

Enduring Role of Land Power in Modern War

Despite the allure of technology-driven warfare, the analysis concludes that land forces continue to play an indispensable role in achieving decisive outcomes in protracted conflicts. Drawing on insights from Russia’s 2014–2015 campaign in Donbas — referenced in the original War on the Rocks post — the piece notes that even in hybrid wars marked by cyber operations and information campaigns, control of territory ultimately depends on the ability to hold ground, secure populations, and deny enemy maneuver.

That earlier analysis of Russia’s actions in Ukraine demonstrated how conventional military capabilities, when combined with irregular tactics and sustained logistics, enabled Moscow to alter facts on the ground despite sanctions and international condemnation. The current Iran-focused assessment applies a similar lens: while precision strikes can disrupt, they rarely determine the end state without the capacity to occupy, defend, or govern key areas.

the debate over ground force deployment is not a relic of past warfare but a necessary consideration in contemporary state competition, where adversaries exploit the gaps between air dominance and political control.