- 21 hours ago
US President Donald Trump's administration is considering deploying thousands of US troops to reinforce its operation in the Middle East, as the US military prepares for possible next steps in its campaign against Iran, Reuters reports, quoting a US official and three people familiar with the matter. FRANCE 24's Sharon Gaffney speaks with Michael O'Hanlon, Director of Research in the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution.
Visit our website:
http://www.france24.com
Like us on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/FRANCE24.English
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/France24_en
Visit our website:
http://www.france24.com
Like us on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/FRANCE24.English
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/France24_en
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:02This is Apropos.
00:03Donald Trump is facing perhaps the most daunting question of the war with Iran,
00:08one that could define his time in office,
00:10whether or not to put US troops on the ground in Iran.
00:13While he's insisting there are no plans to do so,
00:16experts remain concerned that if hardliners in Tehran emerge from the fighting,
00:22they'll be more motivated than ever to build nuclear weapons.
00:25Eliza Herbert takes a closer look.
00:28And do you intend to potentially put US troops or more troops in the region?
00:34No, I'm not putting troops anywhere.
00:37If I were, I certainly wouldn't tell you.
00:39It was a quick rebuff from Donald Trump,
00:42and one many will be taking with a grain of salt.
00:45As the US president weighs his next move in Iran,
00:49US officials have said he is seriously considering deploying thousands of troops.
00:54The sources, speaking anonymously to routers,
00:57claimed they would be on top of the US Marine Expeditionary Unit,
01:01which is currently en route to the region,
01:04and said to be carrying more than 2,000 marines.
01:08Securing the Strait of Hormuz is high on Trump's agenda,
01:11and while oil tankers could be escorted through the channel by air and naval forces,
01:16some troops may be needed along the Iranian shoreline.
01:21Another option reportedly being floated is to deploy soldiers to Karg Island,
01:26Iran's major oil hub in the Strait, which the US targeted on March 13th.
01:32A move that would risk placing soldiers within reach of Iranian missiles and drones.
01:38One thing the Trump administration has confirmed
01:41is that the US remains committed to its objectives.
01:46Destroy missiles, launchers, and Iran's defence industrial base so they cannot rebuild.
01:53Destroy their navy, and Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.
01:58Some analysts believe Trump is also considering a commando operation to retrieve Iran's uranium,
02:05possibly even to the Isfahan site, which the US bombed in June.
02:09A dangerous operation deep into Iranian territory
02:13that would require transporting toxic and radioactive materials
02:17and somehow penetrating the bunker
02:20to retrieve fuel stored hundreds of feet below ground.
02:26For more on what's at stake, we're joined by Michael O'Hanlon,
02:30Director of Research in the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institute.
02:34Thanks so much, Michael, for being with us on the program.
02:36You are an expert on US defence strategy.
02:40So what do you make of these reports that Washington
02:42is potentially considering deploying thousands of soldiers to the Middle East?
02:49Greetings.
02:50Well, I thought your report was very good in outlining the plausible missions,
02:56basically trying to retrieve the enriched uranium,
02:59or trying to prevent Iran from using its coastline near the Strait of Hormuz
03:04to deploy mines or drones against shipping,
03:07or possibly to take and control or do raids against Karj Island,
03:13the main output area for Iran's petrochemical and hydrocarbon exports.
03:19I have not heard President Trump talk in detail about any of those.
03:23So I think what we're doing, myself, in my job, many other defence analysts,
03:28and you and your reporting, is simply to sketch out the plausible missions
03:32based on what we know about Iranian assets
03:35and what we've heard President Trump say about potential goals in this military operation.
03:40But I have not heard him get into any detail on what he would do with ground forces.
03:46I'm confident, however, that 2,000 Marines are not nearly enough
03:50to do anything more than occasional small raids.
03:54They cannot really hold territory.
03:56That's not enough people to do that.
03:58It's not enough people, I don't think,
04:00even to carry out a raid at Isfahan to go after the highly enriched uranium,
04:05because you would need a perimeter defence to make sure that Iran could not send forces
04:10to attack whoever was trying to get underground to go after that uranium.
04:14So we don't have enough ground forces in position yet
04:17if we were even to consider any of these options.
04:20And overall, the President's still saying that he's not considering them.
04:23So we'll just have to see.
04:24And if these stocks aren't secured,
04:27how long would it actually take Iran to get back to a position
04:31where it would be capable of developing a nuclear weapon?
04:34And is it even possible to speculate about that at this point?
04:39Well, it's possible to speculate,
04:41as long as you don't ask me to pin down my estimate very carefully,
04:45because one possibility is that Iran can get to the roughly 900 kilograms
04:51of uranium-235 that's been enriched to 60% purity,
04:58which is getting close to bomb grade of 90%.
05:01If they could reach that, and then they could rebuild centrifuges
05:05in perhaps a secret facility that we don't know about
05:08and would not be invited to inspect,
05:11I think that in that scenario,
05:13they could potentially build a nuclear weapon within a few years.
05:17The hard part is going to be probably building the centrifuges
05:20and reconstituting a centrifuge enrichment cascade facility.
05:25If, however, Iran has to start from scratch
05:29and doesn't get access to that uranium-235
05:32that's enriched to 60% already,
05:35then perhaps we're talking about several or many years.
05:39So, you know, it would be pretty hard for Iran to do this,
05:43let's say, in the year 2026,
05:45unless they have capabilities we simply don't know about
05:47and never attacked, in which case it could be months.
05:50But I think more likely it's single-digit years,
05:54probably two to five years.
05:56But who knows?
05:57And, Michael, after 20 days of war,
06:00more generally, what kind of military capacity
06:02does Iran still have at this stage
06:05in terms of the state of its navy,
06:07its stockpiles of drones and missiles?
06:09The U.S. says it's carried out nearly 8,000 strikes on Iran
06:13over the past three weeks.
06:15Well, right.
06:16I think you're correct to try to break it down
06:18category by category.
06:20If we look at Iran's nuclear facilities,
06:22as you and I were just discussing,
06:24they've been largely compromised.
06:25If we look at Iran's missile-launching capability,
06:29it appears to have been reduced by 90% or more,
06:32at least for the moment.
06:33If we look at Iran's large surface ship navy,
06:37I think it's been very badly damaged.
06:39But if we look at Iran's ability
06:41to still suppress its own population,
06:43I don't think that's been reduced very much at all.
06:46And if we look at Iran's ability to lay mines
06:49or to use unmanned underwater or surface vessels
06:53in the Persian Gulf and near the Strait of Hormuz in particular,
06:57I'm just guessing,
06:58but perhaps that's been reduced by 50%, 30%,
07:03something in that broad range,
07:05but nowhere near 90% to 100%.
07:08And therefore, I believe that threat is potent.
07:10Now, I suppose we could keep doing these air strikes
07:13for several more weeks
07:15in the hope that even the smaller boats
07:17and even the smaller mines would ultimately be destroyed
07:20and the Strait of Hormuz could be reopened
07:22without ever having to put any American ground troops
07:25into Iran along the coastline.
07:27But I think that is a pretty optimistic assessment
07:30and it would still take, I think,
07:31several more weeks of bombardment
07:33to achieve that objective,
07:34even if things were going as well as we possibly hoped.
07:37And Michael, Donald Trump this week
07:39calling repeatedly for NATO allies to get involved
07:42to help secure the Strait of Hormuz.
07:44Today, we heard from six major international powers,
07:48including France,
07:48saying that they would get involved to some degree.
07:51We don't have much detail on what exactly that means.
07:54What do you think these allies have in mind?
07:58First of all, I don't blame allies
08:00for wanting a little bit of time to think this through.
08:02After all, they were not consulted
08:04when the United States initiated hostilities
08:06or even when it began to consider
08:08the use of force against Iran.
08:10And so I think it's a little bit presumptuous
08:13of the United States to expect that France, Britain,
08:16other European or Japanese or Korean allies
08:19would quickly want to get involved.
08:20I think they need some time
08:22to think through their options.
08:23You deserve time to think through your options.
08:26Everybody inside of NATO is still a sovereign country
08:28and this is not NATO's area of geographic focus anyway.
08:32So I'm encouraged to hear that allies
08:35are not simply slamming the door.
08:37That's, I think, a positive development
08:40because I worry that if the allies simply said
08:42categorically no to Mr. Trump,
08:44that could put the future of the alliance at risk
08:47in addition to putting the future of Persian Gulf
08:50and Strait of Hormuz oil shipping
08:52and gas shipping at further risk
08:54because we do need the help
08:55if we're ever going to really make this problem get resolved.
08:59So I don't know what it means.
09:01My guess is European friends don't yet know what it means.
09:04They're giving a lukewarm answer
09:07that's not meant to shut the door
09:08on further consultation,
09:10but they've got to see where this goes
09:12over the next few days
09:13before deciding to put their own forces
09:16at jeopardy in helping the United States.
09:19And Donald Trump as well,
09:21floating the idea that he might actually
09:24simply leave the Strait of Hormuz,
09:26saying that the US doesn't actually need it
09:28and leave it up to NATO allies,
09:30up to the Europeans,
09:31to sort out the problems there
09:33that are, as you say,
09:35not of Europe's making.
09:36Do you think that's an empty thread
09:38on the part of the US president
09:39or is it possible that he might just pull out
09:41and leave the mess that he's created behind?
09:45Well, it's a good question.
09:46You know, as we all are aware,
09:48global markets for oil and gas are fungible,
09:51which means that it doesn't really matter
09:53who produces the oil and gas.
09:55If there's a shortage in global supply,
09:57prices will go up everywhere,
09:59including in the United States.
10:01And that's during a year when Mr. Trump
10:02does not want to lose the Congress
10:04with midterm elections now only eight months away.
10:07So I think it's unlikely to be a serious threat.
10:11On the other hand,
10:12it's true that European countries
10:14have better and more numerous minesweepers
10:16than the United States.
10:18So if we ever got to a point
10:19where we could collectively
10:21or in various coalitions of the willing,
10:25start cleaning up the Strait of Hormuz,
10:27I think Europe would have more capability
10:30to do that than the United States
10:32because we've always emphasized
10:33so-called blue water navies
10:35to get across the Atlantic
10:36or get across the Pacific
10:38in our military operations.
10:40And going back to the Cold War,
10:42it was Europeans who were primarily
10:43going to be responsible for security
10:45near their own coastline.
10:46So in that sense,
10:48there could be a natural division of labor.
10:50And even though Mr. Trump's threat
10:52is not completely logical or compelling,
10:55we may wind up seeing the Europeans do more
10:58if we can ever get to a place
10:59where such an operation
11:00would be relatively safe.
11:02And Michael, regardless of how
11:04or when all of this ends,
11:06do you think that Iran is going to end up
11:07posing an enduring threat?
11:09At this stage,
11:10is a diplomatic solution possible?
11:14I think there will be elements of diplomacy,
11:17but we will not get to a perfect peace.
11:19So we may get to a point
11:21where Iran's role in the region
11:23is less nefarious.
11:25Maybe we get to a nuclear deal
11:27with inspections
11:28that makes Iran's pursuit
11:30of a nuclear weapon
11:31not realistic on any timeline.
11:34Going back to our earlier discussion,
11:36maybe we can get a deal
11:37on that eventually.
11:38But my sense right now
11:40is that Iran's in the mood for revenge
11:42because its leadership
11:43has seen its friends
11:45and family killed
11:47by the Israeli airstrikes in particular.
11:50And of course,
11:51this regime has built
11:52its whole existence
11:53and its whole legitimacy
11:55on the idea of opposition,
11:57opposition to the United States,
11:58opposition to Israel,
12:00opposition even to moderate Arab states
12:03in the broader Middle East.
12:04And that's been true now for 47 years.
12:06So this is a regime
12:07that thrives on violence
12:08and grievance and revenge.
12:12And I'm afraid we're likely
12:13to see some more of that
12:14for a while before any reduction.
12:17And Michael, just finally,
12:19what did you make
12:19of Benjamin Netanyahu's comments
12:21a little earlier this evening
12:22when he said that Israel
12:23did not drag the United States
12:25into this war?
12:28Well, overall,
12:29Prime Minister Netanyahu
12:30is very happy
12:31that he has convinced
12:33President Trump
12:34that the United States
12:36should be Israel's partner
12:37in this operation.
12:38And I think for 20-some years,
12:40the United States
12:41and European friends
12:42have worried about
12:43the possible acquisition
12:44of an Iranian nuclear weapon.
12:46So that's a concern
12:47that we all share
12:48separate from whatever
12:50Israel's assessment may be.
12:52Of course, part of why
12:53we worry about
12:54an Iranian nuclear weapon
12:55is because such a weapon,
12:57if ever developed,
12:58might be used against Israel,
12:59but it also could be used
13:00against the United States.
13:02And Israel has attacked,
13:03excuse me,
13:03Iran has attacked
13:05American interests
13:06many times
13:07in the broader Middle East
13:07going back to the 1980s.
13:09So we do have independent,
13:11separate reasons of our own
13:13to want to see Iran weakened.
13:15So in that limited sense,
13:16Prime Minister Netanyahu
13:17is correct
13:18that we made our own decisions
13:20about when to use force.
13:21But Israel, of course,
13:23created the conditions
13:23that made the attack appealing
13:25last June
13:26and again this winter.
13:28So I think it's been
13:29an interactive,
13:31collaborative effort
13:31between the Israeli
13:33and American governments.
13:34Michael,
13:34we'll have to leave it there
13:35for now.
13:36Thank you so much
13:36for that analysis, though.
13:38That's Michael O'Hanlon,
13:39Director of Research
13:40in the Foreign Policy Programme
13:41at the Brookings Institute.
13:43Thanks so much.
Comments