The great ground war narrative - the hour of the TV alarmists

Tehran - 65 percent of Americans believe Trump will attack Iran with a large-scale ground offensive. Seven percent would support that. Seven. That is lower than the approval rating of the American Congress, which at least reaches ten percent, and yet the entire public debate has been running for weeks around exactly this scenario, as if it were the only one that exists, as if no one had read the numbers.

Investigations have shown: There are indications of an alternative plan. Military sources call it a raid, not a war, no invasion, no mobilization, but targeted commando operations, carried out by special forces, fast and covert, without warning, without public debate, just as no one knew beforehand what would happen with Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, just as the killing of the Ayatollah came, just as the attack on Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan in 2011, you fall asleep, you wake up, and it has happened, and the question of whether it should have happened is no longer asked.

The Pentagon has presented the White House with various options, emphasizing the costs of undesirable scenarios and presenting the preferred ones in a way that makes them appear tempting, slickly produced videos, night vision devices, a cinematic ending, and Trump, who counts the Maduro raid as a success, will fall in love with the next such briefing, according to the assessment of the sources, it is only a matter of time.

Joe Kent, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who resigned in protest against the Iran war. Particularly investigative journalists - including us, who report directly from Iran - are presenting a picture that often hardly appears in the political debate. His appeal: Tell President Trump, your member of Congress, and your senators that you do not support American ground troops in Iran. White House comment line: (202) 456-1111. Congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121. This is how we make our voices heard as citizens.

See also our articles:

Tehran is burning - by day, by night, in the rain - Political earthquake in Washington: resignation of the highest-ranking counterterrorism official in protest

He has lost the war long before he stepped down - Joe Kent, his wife and a sentence that explains everything

The targets that are being discussed are concrete, Kharg Island, through which almost all Iranian oil exports run, as leverage in possible negotiations, a similar island in the Strait of Hormuz to secure shipping routes, and the darkest scenario, a covert operation to secure Iranian nuclear materials, scenarios that are not discussed publicly because the public discussion is taking place elsewhere, about a ground war, about Iraq comparisons, about the specter of conscription.

U.S. President Donald Trump states in a post that the U.S. is holding talks with a “new, more reasonable regime” in Iran about ending military operations. At the same time, he explicitly threatens that in the event of failed negotiations and a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, all power generation facilities, oil fields, as well as Kharg Island - and possibly also desalination plants - will be destroyed. He explicitly describes this as retaliation for earlier killings of U.S. soldiers by Iran.

Lieutenant General Leonard F. Anderson IV, head of the Marine Corps Reserve, wrote in passing in a letter that mass mobilization could become a reality, when asked, the answer from a source was clear, Anderson knows nothing that others do not know, there are no preparations for mobilization, no thought of conscription, the letter exists nonetheless, is quoted, causes nervousness, keeps attention where it is supposed to be, away from what is actually being planned.

The document comes from Leonard F. Anderson IV, Lieutenant General of the U.S. Marine Corps and commander of Marine Forces Reserve as well as Marine Forces South. He addresses the reservists directly and calls for full operational readiness. It is not about exercises. Everyone is to check whether they can be deployed at short notice - equipment packed, uniform ready, personal matters settled. When the deployment order comes, there is no lead time.

Iran is explicitly mentioned. Anderson writes that U.S. forces are already involved in operations related to it. At the same time, he speaks of the possibility of a larger mobilization. The situation is internally assessed as tense. Also important is the standard he sets: what matters is not what is planned, but what works immediately. Training, discipline, and daily preparation are central. At the end follow clear instructions: check equipment, maintain high standards, prepare family. The reserve is to be ready at all times. The handwritten addition “Fight’s on!” further underscores how serious the situation is assessed to be.

➡️ 467.000

The troop numbers tell the same story, since the beginning of the mobilization two months ago the American military presence in the Middle East has increased by only about twenty percent, most of them not combat troops but logistics, maintenance, air defense, and when the Marines of the USS Tripoli group arrive and the first brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division is ready, around five thousand soldiers are available, of which about two thousand five hundred are actual fighters, by comparison almost 467,000 American military personnel were deployed for the Iraq invasion in 2003, today there are around fifty thousand in the entire region, not numbers for a ground war, but for what is actually being planned. The idea of using the 82nd Airborne for an invasion was not a serious plan even during the Iraq war in 2003 - and at that time a large part of the entire U.S. Army was available. The 82nd is a light infantry unit. It does not jump over enemy capitals. As early as March 25 and March 28, we had expressed our doubts and our investigations were already underway.

See also our article: Ground war against Iran - what the media claims, what the world simply accepts and what research actually found

What does not appear in these numbers are the special forces, whose strength is never officially disclosed, Army Special Forces, Army Rangers, the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, Navy SEALs, Air Force Special Tactics, Marine commandos, the Joint Special Operations Command that led the Maduro operation, CIA paramilitaries, exactly the units for what is coming.

Hour of the alarmists

Retired generals and admirals sit in talk shows and speak about possibilities that are not actually being prepared at the moment. A ground war is not inevitable, but it is possible, they say. At the same time, exactly these scenarios dominate the debate - Iraq comparisons, conscription, Vietnam. An ever larger number of television experts pass themselves from studio to studio, build scenarios, deliver assessments that make your hair stand on end. It is the hour of the alarmists. Meanwhile, real operations are running in the background that are hardly talked about. Special forces, airstrikes, targeted operations, all much harder to grasp and often only visible afterward. The Pentagon provides only limited information about what exactly is happening, how often, and with what result. And while a large part of the reporting focuses on political statements, the actual events on the ground often remain a side note.

The Pentagon says very little about what is being bombed, how often, with what result, and what it does say is so far removed from reality that the actual effect can hardly be assessed, the media follow every Trump statement while the war itself appears in subordinate clauses, and 34 percent of Americans would support a limited special forces operation, including 63 percent of Republicans, seven percent want a large ground war, everyone knows that, the White House knows that, the military knows that, and yet America is watching the scenario that will not come, while the other is quietly being prepared, and when it happens, it will feel like the weather, inevitable, as if there had never been another possibility.

Investigations like this take time, money, and sometimes more than that. They are created independently and make visible what is actually happening, while the public debate often takes place elsewhere. A public sphere in which such work is possible is better than one in which it disappears. If you see it the same way, support it.