Probably that’s why Trump is willing to give more time to talks as the ground reality American troops will face in Iran will carry maximum risks and maximum costs. Many may see Trump baulking at the risks that await him in Iran if talks fail and he has to order a ground invasion.
ALSO READ: Telcos navigate subsea cable risks; Centre asks for analysis, fallback options as war rages
A temporary pause over a volatile escalation path
Trump’s decision to delay strikes reflects cautious optimism that diplomacy may still yield results. The president said talks are “going well,” prompting the extension of a deadline that had been set to expire Friday. This pause shows that Trump still sees a viable off-ramp, even as military preparations continue in parallel.
However, this is a fragile and time-bound opening. The US is actively considering expanding its military footprint in the region, including the potential deployment of up to 10,000 additional troops. This juxtaposition of diplomacy and military buildup highlights the precariousness of the moment. While negotiations continue, the infrastructure for escalation is simultaneously being put in place.
ALSO READ: The Iran war is now all about the future of Hormuz
This dual-track strategy increases pressure on Iran but also raises the stakes. Should talks fail after such visible preparations, the military and strategic momentum may push the US toward action, reducing the likelihood that restraint will prevail.
Maximum risk, maximum cost
Among the options under consideration, a ground invasion stands out as the most consequential and dangerous. Reporting from Axios indicates that US planners are examining scenarios involving a direct assault on Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil export terminal. This reflects a recognition that air and naval strikes alone may not decisively cripple Iran’s energy hub. Yet the Axios report says that such planning is inherently tied to worst-case assumptions. A ground operation would require US forces to seize or neutralise a heavily defended target, exposing troops to direct combat in a theatre where Iran has prepared layered defenses. A CNN report reinforces the severity of this option. Kharg Island is described as both strategically indispensable and militarily fortified, meaning any assault would likely encounter stiff resistance. Experts warn that even a limited incursion could result in significant US casualties, particularly if Iranian forces mount a sustained defense or counterattack.
Moreover, once ground forces are committed, the scope of the mission could expand rapidly. What begins as a targeted operation could evolve into a broader campaign if initial objectives are not quickly achieved or if Iran retaliates elsewhere, forcing the US to respond in kind.
Regional spillover and prolonged conflict
One of the most consistent warnings is that any US military action could trigger a wider regional conflict. Iran possesses a network of allied militias and proxy forces across the Middle East, giving it multiple channels through which to respond asymmetrically. CNN reports that an attack on critical infrastructure like Kharg Island could provoke retaliation not just within Iran but across the region, including against US bases or allied interests. This raises the prospect of a multi-front confrontation that extends far beyond the initial target. As per the Reuters report, the movement of additional US troops into the region could itself act as a catalyst for escalation. Such deployments are not easily reversed and may be interpreted by Iran as preparation for sustained operations, prompting preemptive or retaliatory measures.
The risk here is not only immediate escalation but duration. Once multiple actors and theaters are involved, conflicts tend to become protracted. Historical precedent suggests that disentangling from such situations is politically and militarily challenging, increasing the likelihood of a long and costly engagement.
Limits of airstrikes and naval power
While airstrikes and naval operations are often seen as more controlled alternatives to ground invasion, the reporting suggests their effectiveness in this context may be limited. Axios notes that US officials are weighing whether such strikes can meaningfully degrade Iran’s oil infrastructure without follow-on actions. This skepticism stems from the nature of Iran’s energy network. CNN points out that key facilities are hardened, dispersed and in some cases quickly repairable. As a result, even a successful initial strike might only temporarily disrupt exports rather than deliver a lasting strategic blow.
This creates a dilemma. Limited strikes may avoid the immediate risks of a ground invasion but could fail to achieve decisive outcomes. In turn, that could lead to repeated rounds of attacks, each carrying its own escalation risks. A CNN report suggests that this cycle could draw the US into a long military involvement, where the distinction between limited and sustained conflict becomes increasingly blurred.
Strategic and political risks
Beyond the battlefield, the options under consideration carry significant political and strategic implications. Escalating after failed talks could expose the Trump administration to domestic and international criticism, particularly if the conflict becomes prolonged or results in heavy casualties. CNN highlights the risk of miscalculation as a central concern. Experts cited by CNN warn that once direct conflict begins, controlling escalation becomes extremely difficult. Actions intended as limited or symbolic can be interpreted as escalatory, triggering responses that rapidly intensify the situation.
There is also the broader strategic question of commitment. A military campaign that fails to achieve clear objectives quickly could erode US credibility while simultaneously increasing pressure to double down rather than withdraw.
These dynamics create a scenario in which initial decisions carry long-term consequences, locking policymakers into paths that are difficult to reverse without significant cost.
A narrow off-ramp
It appears the US decision space has become constrained and perilous. The current pause in strikes offers a temporary reprieve, but it does not fundamentally alter the underlying dynamics. If negotiations succeed, the US avoids entering a high-risk conflict with uncertain outcomes. If they fail, the administration faces a set of challenges where each path, whether limited strikes or full-scale invasion, carries serious downsides.
The 10-day window is therefore a critical buffer against escalation at a moment when military preparations, strategic calculations and regional tensions are all converging. What happens within this period may determine whether the US steps back from the brink or moves toward a conflict whose risks are already coming sharply into focus.
