Negotiations and Ground Operations: Scenarios for the Coming Weeks in the Iran War
Policy Paper by Dr. Mohammad Kawas – Progress Center for Policies
⸻
Executive Summary
• Washington is promoting a positive narrative around ongoing negotiations while simultaneously deploying military reinforcements in preparation for a limited ground operation.
• U.S. President Donald Trump has introduced new objectives for the campaign, including potential control over Iranian oil resources and Kharg Island.
• Pakistan, backed by four Arab and Islamic countries, is advancing mediation efforts between Washington and Tehran.
• Iran denies the existence of negotiations and is preparing to confront a potential U.S. ground offensive.
• Four key scenarios are emerging for the coming weeks, ranging from escalation and attrition to diplomacy.
⸻
Introduction
As Pakistan intensifies its role as a mediator between Washington and Tehran, reports continue to emerge of increasing U.S. military deployments to the region, alongside discussions of a possible ground operation within the broader context of President Trump’s stated plans to seize control of Iranian oil infrastructure, particularly on Kharg Island. This raises the central question: what are the most likely scenarios for the coming weeks?
⸻
Analysis
Control of Iranian Oil
President Donald Trump’s statement on March 29, 2026, regarding the potential seizure of Iranian oil and Kharg Island represents a central pillar of the U.S. administration’s multidimensional pressure strategy toward Iran. In remarks to the Financial Times, Trump expressed his preference for “taking Iran’s oil,” framing it as a possible war objective and dismissing domestic critics as “stupid people.”
He indicated that the United States has multiple options, including seizing Kharg Island—described as a “small oil island” with weak defenses—stating: “Maybe we take Kharg, maybe we don’t. We have many options.” He further suggested that such an operation might require a temporary U.S. presence on the island, expressing confidence in its feasibility.
Kharg Island, located in the Arabian Gulf approximately 26–34 kilometers off Iran’s coast, is a critical node in Iran’s economy, handling around 90% of the country’s crude oil exports. It hosts key infrastructure including storage facilities, loading terminals, and pipelines directly linked to mainland production.
Control of the island—whether through ground operations, naval action, or targeted airstrikes—would effectively cripple Iran’s economy, cutting off its primary revenue stream under already severe sanctions. Given its proximity to the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil supply passes, any military action there would have immediate repercussions on global energy markets, potentially triggering sharp price increases and supply chain disruptions.
⸻
Potential U.S. Ground Operations
Trump’s statements coincide with reports suggesting that the Pentagon is preparing for limited ground operations in Iran. These plans reportedly involve short-term missions—lasting weeks rather than months—focused on specific objectives such as coastal sites near the Strait of Hormuz or direct seizure of Kharg Island.
These would likely involve special operations forces supported by conventional infantry units, rather than a full-scale invasion. On the Iranian side, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf warned that Iranian forces are “waiting” for U.S. troops, threatening retaliation against both American forces and their regional allies.
Observers interpret such rhetoric as an attempt to amplify deterrence, highlighting Iran’s capabilities in mines, missiles, and drones. Reports also indicate that Iran has begun reinforcing Kharg Island with additional forces, defensive systems, and fortifications, signaling anticipation of a potential ground assault.
This military buildup is accompanied by significant U.S. deployments, including:
• 2,000–3,000 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division
• Around 5,000 Marines
• Additional reinforcements potentially reaching 10,000 troops
Estimates suggest total operational forces could reach 17,000 troops, aimed at executing rapid, targeted operations rather than large-scale occupation.
⸻
Trump’s Deadlines and Pakistani Mediation
Trump has issued multiple deadlines to Iran, widely interpreted as a strategy to buy time for military positioning. These included:
• 10–15 days to return to nuclear negotiations
• Deadlines related to reopening the Strait of Hormuz (initially 48 hours, extended to April 6)
During this period, potential strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure were delayed, with Trump citing “positive talks.” He described these discussions as “very good,” noting Iranian gestures such as allowing some oil tankers to pass.
This approach reflects a “pressure with diplomacy” strategy, maintaining military readiness while keeping negotiation channels open.
However, Trump warned on March 30, 2026, that failure of negotiations could result in strikes targeting water, electricity, and oil infrastructure, including Kharg Island.
Pakistan has emerged as a key mediator, relaying a 15-point U.S. proposal that includes a one-month ceasefire to enable broader negotiations. Other countries—Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt—have supported mediation efforts, with Islamabad offering to host direct talks.
A high-level meeting of foreign ministers from these countries in Islamabad on March 29 provided political backing for the initiative, reflecting a shared interest in preventing wider regional escalation.
Despite this, Iran has denied the existence of direct negotiations, labeling the U.S. proposal as “unilateral,” while Trump continues to express optimism. Diplomatic sources suggest that both sides may be using mediation to gain time and improve bargaining positions.
⸻
Scenarios for the Coming Weeks
1. Limited Military Escalation
The U.S. proceeds with a rapid ground operation targeting Kharg Island or coastal sites. This could impose severe economic pressure on Iran but risks triggering Iranian retaliation against U.S. bases and regional allies, expanding the conflict.
2. Successful Diplomacy
Pakistani-led mediation results in a ceasefire agreement, including reopening the Strait of Hormuz and partial sanctions relief. Trump could frame this as a diplomatic victory, avoiding costly military escalation.
3. Prolonged Mutual Escalation
Negotiations fail, leading to repeated strikes on oil infrastructure and possible limited ground incursions, accompanied by Iranian retaliation targeting shipping routes and regional assets. This scenario carries significant global economic risks.
4. Fragile Balance (Pressure Without Resolution)
Negotiations continue without a final agreement, while military pressure remains in place. Kharg Island remains a potential target, and both sides use time to strengthen their positions. This scenario is shaped by domestic political pressures in the U.S. and economic constraints in Iran.
⸻
Conclusions and Key Judgments
• Trump’s rhetoric on “taking Iranian oil” and Kharg Island reflects a preference for a combined military-economic strategy, coupled with confidence in operational feasibility.
• Kharg Island represents a critical vulnerability in Iran’s economic structure, and targeting it would have direct global energy implications.
• Threats to strike water, electricity, and oil infrastructure function as negotiation leverage but also signal readiness for escalation, potentially including ground operations.
• U.S. military reinforcements indicate preparation for limited, rapid operations, not full-scale invasion.
• Trump’s repeated deadlines serve a dual function: diplomatic signaling and operational preparation.
• Pakistan’s mediation role is increasingly central, though conflicting narratives between Washington and Tehran reflect ongoing diplomatic complexity.
• Iran appears prepared to confront a ground assault and extend retaliation to regional allies.
• Four main scenarios are emerging, ranging from controlled escalation to diplomatic resolution.
• The risk of broader regional involvement is rising, prompting coordinated efforts by regional actors to contain escalation.
⸻
Overall Assessment:
The coming weeks will likely be shaped by a dynamic interplay between military pressure and diplomatic maneuvering, with outcomes ranging from limited escalation to fragile de-escalation—yet with persistent risks of wider regional conflict.
