Iran’s air force, navy effectively neutralized, but Tehran has 7-mln mobilization potential for ground war, Irakli Aladashvili

The situation in the Middle East is reaching a critical point. Iran is responding to Israeli and US strikes with counterattacks and threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. Irakli Aladashvili, Editor-in-Chief of the military-analytical journal Arsenal, believes that President Donald Trump’s shifting statements are part of a pre-election tactic, as rising energy prices pose a direct threat to his political future.

The expert claimed despite significant damage to Iran’s air and naval infrastructure, a ground intervention would amount to “opening Pandora’s box,” with potentially catastrophic consequences for the global economy and security.

– Donald Trump has changed his statements on Iran several times within just three days. Initially, he issued a 48-hour ultimatum, then spoke of a five-day window. In his latest remarks, he claims to have established indirect communication through a mediator and even received a kind of “gift” from Iran related to oil and gas. Many believe this is a tactic to buy time. How do you interpret his latest statements?

– It has been more than three weeks since Israel and the United States began their strikes on Iran. We are also witnessing Iran’s retaliatory attacks against Israel, US bases in the Persian Gulf, and energy infrastructure in the region. The most critical issue, however, is the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which would represent the most serious blow to Trump.

We know that the United States is heading into midterm elections this year, and rising gasoline prices would create significant pressure on American voters. Under such circumstances, Trump could even face electoral defeat. He understands this, and polling data likely reflects the risks he is facing. This increases the chances of the Democrats winning the midterms.

Therefore, his primary objective at this stage is to keep the Strait of Hormuz open in order to stabilize global prices. If the US strikes Iran’s power plants, Tehran has already warned of retaliation targeting energy facilities and desalination plants in the Persian Gulf. Water in this region is essentially as valuable as gold, as it is largely produced through desalination. If Iran strikes these facilities, Gulf countries would face severe consequences, including potential shortages of drinking water.

Thus, the 48-hour ultimatum - which yielded no tangible results - appears to have been part of Trump’s political maneuvering. Now he claims there is a mediator for negotiations. Iran’s demands are clear: halt the bombings and provide compensation for destroyed infrastructure. The United States is unlikely to agree, and even if it did, Israel would strongly oppose such a move. For Prime Minister Netanyahu, as long as Trump’s “window of opportunity” remains open and US support continues, he will seek to maximize it. Israel’s objective is to weaken Iran to the greatest extent possible, similar to its approach in Gaza, in order to minimize the threat emanating from Tehran.

– Trump has stated that Iran’s air and naval forces are “dead.” How accurate is this assessment? Does Iran retain asymmetric capabilities that could significantly damage US plans?

– Yes, in terms of aviation, Iran’s capabilities are effectively disabled, as runways and airfields have been rendered inoperable. The same applies to major naval ports where large vessels were stationed. Of course, Iran has hidden fighter aircraft in underground facilities, as well as small missile boats. These can be deployed at certain times.

However, airspace is largely controlled by Israeli and US forces. This makes it extremely difficult for Iran to deploy its concealed military assets - any significant military movement is quickly detected and destroyed.

– What about ground warfare? Who would have the advantage, and would such a decision by the United States amount to a strategic miscalculation?

– In ground warfare, Iran would clearly have the advantage. The country effectively has two armies: its regular armed forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which functions as a parallel military structure. In total, Iran has around 500,000 troops and can mobilize up to 7 million people if necessary.

Under such conditions, defeating Iran in a ground war would be highly questionable.

– There is visible division within US political circles regarding this war. Some argue that despite the strikes, key objectives remain unfulfilled. Western experts warn that the conflict could inflict greater damage on the United States and its allies. What goals are being referred to, and what has not been achieved?

– It is now evident - and no longer denied - that the Trump administration acted in response to Netanyahu’s request, demand, or pressure. Regardless of how we label it, the decision was made at Israel’s urging.

The initial concept resembled a “blitzkrieg,” aimed at eliminating Ayatollah Khamenei, which was indeed accomplished. Around 50 high-ranking military officials were also killed. However, the regime itself has not collapsed.

Moreover, strikes have extended to Persian Gulf countries that were not directly involved. Israel’s ultimate goal is to dismantle the Ayatollahs’ rule, but achieving this is extremely difficult. A ground operation would mean launching a massive war - one that could overshadow even the war in Ukraine. At this stage, neither the United States nor Israel appears prepared for such an escalation.

– There is also discussion about the possible seizure of Khark Island. Some argue it is tactically feasible but strategically equivalent to opening “Pandora’s box.” If Iran deploys naval mines there, the global economic impact could be severe, with oil prices skyrocketing.

– There are many islands in the Persian Gulf, and it is conceivable that US Marines could seize one to control the Strait of Hormuz and ensure the passage of oil and gas tankers. However, controlling islands alone would not guarantee security.

Iran could still strike from its coastline, even with artillery, and potentially sink tankers. No tanker will enter an active combat zone - no one is suicidal. No international company would insure vessels forced to pass through such high-risk conditions.

Therefore, at this stage, I see no real prospects for de-escalation.

By Elza Paposhvili