3월 30일. (8 p.m) 전쟁. 예측은 불가능하지만, 이란 지상전은 가능하지 않다. 그런데 왜 미국은 82공수부대, 미해병대 일부를 호르무즈로 파견하는가? 트럼프의 강한척에 지나지 않는 전술이다. 루비오가, "지상군 없이도" 미국 목표는 다 이뤘다고 말했다. 파키스탄 이집트 튀르키에 사우디 등 외무장관들이 정전 협상 테이블을 만드는 중이다.
82공수와 미해병이 농축 우라늄 탈취하러 이스파한에 들어가는 것은 무의미하다. 이란은 언제든지 그 정도 우라늄을 만들 수 있기 때문이다.
트럼프와 이란이 먼저 파키스탄과 이집트 사우디 아라비아의 중재에 나와야 한다. 4월 전쟁이 지속되면 80억 인구의 삶은 더 곤란해진다. 당장 올 가을 식량위기가 닥칠 것이다.
사이먼 티스덜 가디언 논평가는 트럼프가 과오를 빨리 인정하고 전쟁을 끝내라고 썼다. 'Trump ! eat humble pie' 라는 말이다. 이 말이 뭔 말인지 몰라서 찾아보니, 기원이 eat umble pie 다. 엄블은 사슴의 간, 심장 이런 부위라서, 주인이나 귀족이 먹지 않고, 지위가 낮은 하인들이 먹던 것이라 한다.
글 쓰는 사람들도 어이없는 전쟁에 화가 단단히 났다. 해외 사설이나 논평을 보면. 트럼프는 지금도 가족사업 돈 계산중이다. 그에게 사슴의 쓸개라도 먹어야 할 판이다.
2월 28일부터 3월 27일까지 전쟁 피해자.
Trump is contemplating the sheer folly of boots on the ground in Iran. How did it come to this?
Simon Tisdall
After the anguish of Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s almost unthinkable the US would again send troops to the Middle East – but its president is desperate and narcissistic
Sun 29 Mar 2026 11.56 BST
Share
1,574
Concern is justifiably growing that a cornered Donald Trump will send US ground troops into combat on Iranian soil to avoid being personally and politically humiliated in a war he started, mismanaged and cannot end. Yet such a self-serving escalation, even if ostensibly limited in duration and scope, could itself prove catastrophic for him and the American people. Think what happened in previous US military interventions. In sum, he’s caught in a modern-day catch-22. Pick your own metaphor for dumb. Trump’s stumped, hoist by his own petard, stuck between a rock and a hard place, and up the creek without a paddle. The creek in question is, of course, the strait of Hormuz.
Firmly ensconced in his weird parallel universe, Trump insists the war is all but won, Iran is suing for peace and talks are making good progress. In the real world, Iran is still fighting on all fronts, Israel is still bombing, the strait of Hormuz remains largely closed, and the Iran-allied Houthi militia in Yemen has joined the war, attacking Israel and potentially blocking Red Sea trade routes. The US and Iran have each issued maximalist demands, but there is no sign of actual negotiations. They are even further apart than they were before Trump, egged on by Benjamin Netanyahu, abandoned diplomacy last month. Sometime soon, Trump will be forced to confront the huge gap between what he wants and what’s on offer. At that point he could turn to the troop buildup in the Gulf and order ground attacks.
How did it come to this? It’s incredible to think that after all the mortal agony and anguish of Iraq and Afghanistan, a US president is once again seriously contemplating boots on the ground in the Middle East. It’s even more amazing the president concerned is Trump, a noisy critic of costly foreign adventures. Yet this is no unlucky break, no accidental misfortune. It’s the result of deliberate policy. If the US is facing impossible choices, the responsibility is entirely Trump’s, though he will surely blame others. Pete Hegseth, the Pentagon’s troubled comic-book warlord, is in his gun-sights.
Ignoring facts on the ground, the White House continues to spew lies and bombast. Trump is plainly in denial, claiming regime change has already been achieved via assassination. He has this strange habit of behaving like a spectator, detached from the chaotic events he himself sets in motion. He acts as if the global energy shock, the US’s abject failure to defend the Hormuz strait and its Gulf allies, Iran’s unyielding defiance under fire, and the absence of the predicted popular uprising in Tehran have nothing to do with him. He doesn’t understand Iran is fighting an asymmetric war, that even the biggest bombs cannot obliterate pride and ideology, faith and history.
Trump is increasingly isolated and out on a limb. His wealthy Arab business cronies no longer trust him. US bases on their territory now resemble a liability, not a defence. When he demanded Nato’s help, Europe said: we’ll let you know. Likewise, Iran’s ethnic Kurds are less than keen to die for a muppet. Support for the war among the US public and the Maga right, always weak, is a fast-vanishing mirage. Having egged him on, Netanyahu refuses to bail him out – or to stop bombing everyone in sight. Silly-billy Trump! He believed Israel’s assurance of quick victory. As for Iran, its surviving leadership, dominated by ultras, reckons it’s winning. Its hard line gets harder by the day.
Imagine being one of the thousands of US marines and paratroopers now deploying to the Gulf. With a commander-in-chief like Trump, who needs enemies? Except plenty more lie in wait. Iran’s armed forces number 610,000 active-duty personnel, with reserves of 350,000. The regime may no longer be able to fight in the air or at sea. But on land, treading familiar terrain and ultimately willing, perhaps, to sacrifice “human waves” of troops, as in the 1980’s Iran-Iraq war, it remains a formidable foe. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps says it’s ready to carpet-bomb its own territory if invaded.
If Trump were to order ground attacks – both he and Netanyahu have publicly discussed the possibility – the targets would most likely be the coastal batteries, missile defences and concealed armed speedboat bases dotting the northern flank of the Hormuz strait. An attack on the Kharg oil export terminal further up the Gulf is also predicted. Kharg is known, ominously, as the Forbidden Island; it may be easier to overrun than hold. Such incursions would be intended to force the reopening of the strait, thereby easing the energy crisis, and strengthening Trump’s negotiating hand.
The inherent, inescapable military risks are daunting. Casualties would be inevitable. Even if operations went well in the short term, questions would immediately arise about potential escalation when Iran counterattacked, expansion of the operational area and duration of the occupation. If they went badly, the cry would go up for reinforcements – a scenario grimly familiar to anyone who recalls mission-creep in Iraq and Afghanistan. More risky still, to the point of suicidal, is another floated option: sending US and Israeli special forces deep into the interior to snatch Iran’s hidden, physically volatile stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
Does Trump, for all his childish threats of epic fury and hellish punishment, really want to unleash this nightmare? A rational person would strive to avoid it. At one level, his desperate-sounding, fiercely disputed claims that Iran is privately “begging” for peace reflect a realisation that a bloody, open-ended land war could destroy his presidency. His problem is that Iran’s regime knows this too. So, entirely logically, it will continue to rebuff his maximalist 15-point “peace plan” – which amounts to a call for total surrender – while upping its own demands. They include a permanent end to US-Israeli aggression, undisputed sovereignty over the Hormuz strait, financial reparations and lifting of sanctions.
Any deal that fails to satisfy bottom-line US and Israeli demands – namely, a definitive end to Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile development programmes, a halt to Tehran’s support for allied regional militias, and guaranteed freedom of navigation in the Gulf – will be seen as a defeat for Trump. He now plainly wants to end the war but on his terms, with a deal superior to that secured by Barack Obama in 2015 (and subsequently trashed by Trump). Iran, angry, wounded yet resilient, will not give it to him. Trump’s choice: cave or escalate.
What to say or think at this dread juncture? This illegal war should never have been launched. Trump acted foolishly and opportunistically. Netanyahu, too, is greatly to blame. The threat was not “imminent”. And the war’s most persuasive justification – a promise to free Iranians from tyranny – has been abandoned. Negotiations, unconditional on both sides, are the only sane way out. Trump must swallow his pride, admit his error, eat humble pie. Yet as all the world knows, the very idea that this most ignorant, reckless and narcissistic of US leaders might actually do so is utterly ridiculous.
The second Trump presidency was always going to end in disaster. Now it’s happening.
Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator
