(Phnom Penh): In modern warfare, not every military conflict ends with ground forces occupying territory. Yet when the leader of a major power states that “all options remain on the table,” it signals that the most serious option—deploying ground troops—is being considered strategically.

Amid the escalating conflict surrounding Iran, a crucial question is emerging: could a ground war become the key to ending the conflict and securing global energy transportation routes, or would it instead turn into a new strategic trap for the United States?

A statement by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who said that President Donald Trump “is not ruling out any option,” does not necessarily indicate an immediate decision to deploy ground forces. Rather, it is a strategic signal designed to show that the United States is keeping all possible responses open.

In strategic terms, such an approach is known as Strategic Ambiguity—maintaining uncertainty about the next step in order to increase psychological pressure on adversaries and create favorable conditions for negotiation.

But the larger question extends beyond military security. It also concerns the stability of global energy markets, as tensions surrounding Iran and the Strait of Hormuz could directly affect oil supply and energy prices worldwide.

Military and Energy Logic: Why Ground Forces Could Matter

Historically, many wars have not been decided by air or naval strikes alone. Control of territory on the battlefield has often been essential to dismantling an adversary’s military capability and political power.

Air power can destroy targets and weaken defensive systems, but decisive strategic victory frequently requires ground forces to control key areas.

For example, during the Iraq War, air strikes paved the way for military operations, but the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime ultimately came through ground forces advancing into Baghdad.

In the case of Iran, some military analysts argue that ground forces could offer several strategic advantages.

1. Destroying Missile Networks and Military Infrastructure
Many of Iran’s missile facilities and defensive installations are built in mountainous terrain or underground complexes. Such hardened targets can withstand air strikes and may require ground operations to locate, dismantle, or secure them effectively.

2. Securing Critical Global Energy Routes
Control of coastal areas near the Strait of Hormuz could become a key strategic factor in limiting Iran’s ability to threaten one of the world’s most important oil transportation routes.

The strait carries roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply, and even minor disruptions there can trigger major volatility in global energy markets.

Amid the current conflict, CNN reported that Iran had begun deploying naval mines in the strait, a move analysts interpret as part of a “chokepoint strategy” aimed at pressuring global energy markets.

Several major Asian economies—including China, Japan, South Korea, and India—depend heavily on oil shipments passing through Hormuz. As a result, any threat to close the strait would not merely be a military issue but also a global economic one.

A disruption in oil supply could lead to:
- Rising fuel and energy prices
- Increased transportation costs
- Higher inflation worldwide
- Greater economic pressure on oil-importing nations

In this context, securing global oil shipping lanes has become one of the most critical strategic objectives in the ongoing conflict.

President Donald Trump also warned on Truth Social that if Iran had indeed planted mines in the Strait of Hormuz, they should be removed immediately.

Following that statement, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that, under the president’s directive, U.S. Central Command conducted operations targeting Iranian mine-laying vessels in the region.

According to the U.S. military, several Iranian naval vessels were destroyed, including 16 mine-laying boats near the Strait of Hormuz—highlighting how the battle over energy security has become a central strategic dimension of the conflict.

Why It Could Become a Strategic Trap

Despite these potential advantages, many military analysts warn that deploying ground forces against Iran could carry significant risks.

Iran’s geography poses serious challenges for invasion and long-term military control. The country spans roughly 1.6 million square kilometers, has a population of more than 85 million, and contains extensive mountainous terrain that could turn into prolonged battlegrounds.

Moreover, Iran has developed a strategy of asymmetric warfare, relying on mobile forces and regional networks such as:
- Local militias and paramilitary groups
- Mobile missile systems
- Regional proxy forces and allied armed groups

If a ground war were to begin, it could easily evolve into a prolonged conflict that would be difficult to end quickly.

History offers clear warnings. The United States previously faced similar challenges in Afghanistan and Iraq, where ground wars evolved into long-lasting conflicts that consumed vast military and financial resources.

These experiences are precisely why many analysts believe Washington would prefer to avoid repeating such scenarios in a potential war with Iran.

A prolonged ground war could also create significant domestic political pressure within the United States. Heavy troop casualties or an extended conflict could trigger public opposition and intensify political debate in Washington.

For many Americans, the long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq remain painful reminders of the costs of extended military engagements.

The Real Strategic Objective

Despite signals from the White House suggesting that all options remain open—including the possibility of ground operations—many analysts believe that the true objective of the United States and Israel is not a full-scale invasion of Iran.

Instead, their strategic priorities appear to focus on three goals:
- Reducing Iran’s military capabilities
- Preventing threats to critical global energy routes
- Creating strategic pressure to force negotiations

In this sense, a ground war would likely remain a last resort—an option that could alter the course of the conflict but also carries the risk of triggering a far larger crisis if the situation spirals beyond control.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the conflict surrounding Iran is not merely a military confrontation between states. It is also a strategic contest over control of global energy security.

The central question is not simply whether the United States could win a war. Rather, it is how such a conflict would affect the stability of global energy markets and the world economy.

Deploying ground forces could become a powerful tool to secure oil shipping routes and pressure Iran. Yet history shows that ground wars can reshape the battlefield while simultaneously opening the door to prolonged conflicts and deeper crises.

As the world grows increasingly concerned about potential oil shortages and rising energy prices, the most critical question remains:

Can the display of military power truly secure global energy routes and restore stability—or will it instead become the starting point of an even larger crisis for the global economy?