The U.S. military reportedly has four plans for a "final strike" against Iran, significantly increasing the risks of casualties and energy supply disruptions.

According to Xinhua News Agency, the Wall Street Journal reported on the 26th, citing U.S. Department of Defense officials, that the Pentagon is considering deploying up to 10,000 ground troops to the Middle East, thereby providing more military options for President Trump.

CNN cited multiple informed sources stating that, in the event diplomatic efforts may fail, the Trump administration is evaluating various options to escalate military actions against Iran, but these options could not only result in significant casualties but also make it difficult to ensure a true end to the conflict. Although current operations are primarily focused on airstrikes, the Pentagon has developed various operational plans, including the deployment of ground troops and the control of key targets. The U.S. military has also devised ground action plans to penetrate deep into Iranian territory to seize highly enriched uranium buried within nuclear facilities. However, compared to the complex and high-risk ground operations, the U.S. may opt to launch large-scale airstrikes against these facilities.

Additionally, U.S. news outlet Axios reported that U.S. officials and sources indicated that the Pentagon is preparing military options for a “final strike” against Iran, including ground operations and large-scale bombing campaigns.

Axios quoted officials and sources reporting that the “final strike” includes four options: 1. Invading or blockading Iran’s main oil export hub, Kharg Island; 2. Invading Iran’s Larak Island, where Iran has bunkers, deploys attack boats to destroy cargo ships, and monitors movements in the Strait of Hormuz with radar; 3. Seizing strategically significant Abu Musa Island and two smaller islands, which are located near the western entrance of the Strait of Hormuz and are currently controlled by Iran; 4. Blocking or seizing vessels transporting Iranian oil exports on the eastern side of the Strait of Hormuz.

CNN pointed out that as Trump seeks to find the “next phase” for actions in the Middle East, relevant internal simulations are becoming increasingly important. However, at the same time, economic and political pressures are also mounting, prompting the government to seek a path that can achieve a swift “victory.” Nonetheless, Trump has wavered on whether to escalate the conflict further, fearing that a miscalculation could lead to a long and costly war of attrition. He stated in a cabinet meeting that Iran “is no longer able to retaliate” and expressed that there is “still a chance to reach an agreement,” but the decision lies with Iran.

On the diplomatic front, Trump has recently sent multiple signals expressing hope to end the conflict quickly. He previously threatened to strike Iranian power facilities but later indicated that he would postpone action due to signs from the Iranian side expressing a willingness to negotiate, extending the related deadline to April 6. However, the prospects for negotiations between the two sides remain unclear. A 15-point peace proposal put forward by the U.S. has already been swiftly rejected by Iran, while conditions proposed by Iran, including war compensation, have also been deemed unacceptable by the U.S.

Since February 28, the U.S. and Israel have conducted several weeks of high-intensity strikes against Iran, resulting in the deaths of several senior military personnel and weakening some of its offensive capabilities. However, the Iranian regime has instead further consolidated domestic control and strengthened its grip on the Strait of Hormuz, severely impacting oil transportation in the Gulf region and putting pressure on the global energy market. Landon Terenz, an energy and national security official who has served in multiple U.S. administrations, pointed out to CNN that there are currently almost no effective policy tools available to compensate for potential supply gaps.

CNN reported that a series of more offensive options being discussed within the U.S. government would mostly require the deployment of ground troops. Analysts have indicated that this would not only significantly increase the risk of U.S. military casualties but could also trigger broader regional conflicts. Once the U.S. escalates its actions, Iran would almost certainly retaliate, including strikes against energy facilities in the Middle East. Previously, Iran’s missile attack on Qatar’s Ras Laffan gas facility had already raised market concerns about the escalation of conflict.

Moreover, Iran may also leverage its alliance with the Houthis to launch attacks on tankers in the Red Sea shipping lanes. The Red Sea has now become an important alternative route to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, and if this route is obstructed, the global energy supply will face more serious impacts. A shipping broker indicated that if the situation in the Red Sea worsens, it could further “choke” oil transportation from the Gulf.

Domestically in the U.S., sending ground troops to Iran also faces political resistance. Several Republican senators have hinted at their opposition to this option, indicating potential divisions within the party. Analysts believe that if U.S. troops directly engage and casualties occur, the public will clearly recognize it as a full-scale war, rather than the “limited action” previously described by Trump.

Experts have also warned that even if military operations are tactically successful, it is difficult to ensure the achievement of strategic objectives. Iran has already deployed defenses and shifted weapons in key areas, making relevant actions even more dangerous. Gregory Brew, an analyst at Eurasia Group, pointed out that even if the U.S. controls Iran’s oil resources, “Iran will not immediately yield as a result, but may instead react more aggressively.”

The Paper’s reporter Zhu Zhengyong and intern Jiang Jiahe

Massive information and precise interpretation are available on the Sina Finance APP.