The U.S. military has spent years developing plans to seize islands and bases along Iran's southern coast, retired Gen. Frank McKenzie disclosed Sunday on CBS News's "Face the Nation." The former commander of U.S. Central Command laid out a vision of targeted ground raids designed not to occupy Iranian territory permanently but to break Tehran's leverage and force it to the negotiating table.
His comments landed the same weekend The Washington Post reported that the Department of Defense was preparing plans for ground operations lasting for weeks in Iran, potentially involving special operations forces and regular infantry troops.
A month into the conflict, the contours of what a ground component might look like are coming into sharper focus.
McKenzie drew a careful distinction between raids and prolonged occupation. Speaking directly to host Margaret Brennan, he outlined the strategic logic, The Hill reported:
"Margaret, for many years we've considered options along the southern coast of Iran, seizing islands, seizing small bases. Typically raids. And a raid is an operation with a planned withdrawal. You're not going to stay. But some of those islands you could seize and hold. That would have a couple effects."
The word "raid" carries weight here. This is not the language of nation-building or indefinite deployment. It is the language of force projection with a defined objective and a planned exit. Conservatives who rightly learned the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan should note the distinction. Seize, hold what's useful, withdraw from the rest. Apply pressure without inheriting a country.
McKenzie then zeroed in on a target that would strike at the heart of the Iranian regime's ability to fund its proxies and sustain its war machine:
"First of all, it would be profoundly humiliating for Iran and would give us great weight in negotiations. The second, the example of Kharg Island, which everyone talks about, if you seize Kharg Island, you really can shut down the Iranian oil economy completely. And the beauty of seizing it is, you're not destroying it."
That last line matters. Seizing Kharg Island wouldn't require bombing critical infrastructure into rubble. It would mean controlling it, turning Iran's own economic chokepoint into American leverage. The infrastructure stays intact. The revenue stops flowing. And the card can be played at the negotiating table rather than reduced to ash.
McKenzie also offered something rare in discussions about Middle Eastern conflicts: a concrete definition of success.
"I think a success looks like the Strait of Hormuz is open. We get some kind of deal on the ballistic missile program, some kind of deal on the nuclear program. That's probably about as much as you could hope for."
Three objectives. An open strait. Constraints on Iran's ballistic missile program. A deal on the nuclear program. That is not a wish list drawn up by think-tank fantasists. It is a framework rooted in achievable military and diplomatic outcomes, articulated by a man who spent his career in the region.
And McKenzie expressed confidence that those objectives are within reach:
"I believe all of those things are actually within our grasp. We just need to continue. Iran will ultimately respond to the use of force."
That final sentence is the one the foreign policy establishment has spent decades trying to avoid saying out loud. Iran responds to force. Not strongly worded letters from the U.N. Security Council. Not sanctions packages riddled with waivers. Not diplomatic engagement premised on the hope that the regime will moderate itself if we just show enough goodwill. Force.
The conversation isn't theoretical. Some 3,500 sailors and Marines aboard the USS Tripoli arrived Friday in the Centcom area in the Middle East. The Amphibious Ready Group of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit brings transport and strike fighter aircraft, as well as amphibious assault and tactical assets.
U.S. officials told The Washington Post that the ground operations under consideration may involve special operations forces and regular infantry troops undertaking raids. At the same time, officials have said the massive deployment of troops in the Middle East a month into the war does not mean President Trump has decided to use ground troops.
That distinction is worth understanding clearly. Deploying capability is not the same as deploying orders. Having the 31st MEU in theater gives the commander-in-chief options. It puts Tehran on notice that every escalation calculus now includes the possibility of American boots on Iranian soil. Whether those boots hit the ground is a decision that hasn't been made. But the fact that it can be made quickly changes the strategic equation.
A recent CBS News/YouGov poll found 60 percent of respondents opposed the conflict with Iran, while 40 percent supported it. That number will get heavy rotation from critics eager to frame military action as politically toxic.
But polls taken during wartime are snapshots, not verdicts. Public opinion on every American military engagement in the modern era has shifted dramatically based on outcomes. What matters is not where the polls sit a month in. What matters is whether the strategy produces results. McKenzie's framework, limited raids with defined objectives and planned withdrawals, is precisely the kind of operation designed to deliver results without the open-ended commitment that erodes public support.
The 60 percent number also deserves context. Americans are understandably wary of Middle Eastern entanglements after two decades of wars that lacked clear objectives and exit strategies. That wariness is healthy. It is also not an argument against every use of military force. It is an argument against stupid uses of military force. Seizing an island that controls Iran's oil exports and using it as a bargaining chip is not stupid. It is the opposite of stupid.
The broader picture is one of escalating leverage. Military assets are in theater. Raid plans that have been refined for years are on the table. A former Centcom commander is publicly articulating how those raids work and what they achieve. None of this is accidental.
Tehran is watching. Every regime in the region is watching. The question for Iran's leadership is straightforward: negotiate now, while your oil infrastructure is still under your control, or wait and negotiate after it isn't.
Iran will ultimately respond to the use of force. The only question is how much force it takes before they figure that out.
