The United States has boosted its military presence in the Middle East to a level not seen since the leadup to the 2003 Iraq invasion, as U.S. President Donald Trump considers whether to order fresh strikes on Iran and his administration continues indirect diplomatic talks with Tehran over its nuclear program.
Though the scale of the U.S. military buildup gives Trump considerable options if he decides to attack and Iran is considered about as weak as it’s been in decades, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other military officials have reportedly warned him that a major, lengthy military operation against Iran would carry significant risksincluding casualties for U.S. and allied forces.
Trump, attempting to throw cold water on the reports of Caine’s warnings, posted on Truth Social on Feb. 23 that his top military advisor “like all of us, would like not to see War but, if a decision is made on going against Iran at a Military level, it is his opinion that it will be something easily won.”
But former U.S. military leaders Foreign Policy spoke with also expressed concerns about the risks for U.S. forces and allies in the region if Trump gives the go-ahead for strikes.
“The chances of losing aircraft go up exponentially when an attack is so thoroughly telegraphed,” retired Adm. James Stavridis, former supreme allied commander of NATO, said. “Iran’s air defenses have been much reduced, but they are still capable of taking out incoming aircraft if we do not thoroughly degrade them in real time for the coming strikes. This means unmanned systems going in first, using cyber to knock down their capabilities, putting up electronic jamming aircraft, and using anti-radiation missiles to take out their radar.”
Trump is considering new strikes on Iran while still riding high from successful military operations in the past year, including last June’s strikes on key nuclear sites in Iran and the January raid that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. This raises questions as to whether the president, who routinely boasts about the outcomes of these operations, might be overconfident heading into another potential military action.
David Petraeus, a retired U.S. Army general who commanded U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and also served as CIA director, said that Trump has been fortunate that major military operations during his second term have not led to significant U.S. troop casualties so far. The operation to capture Maduro was “much riskier than people realize,” Petraeus said. “This was by comparison to the Osama bin Laden operation—during which I was the commander of Afghanistan, so in a ringside seat—really, really very risky.”
During the Maduro operation, an MH-47 Chinook helicopter carrying U.S. Army Delta Force commandos reportedly came under fire. The pilot, who helped plan the operation, was shot in the leg three times and struggled to keep the helicopter aloft. The pilot was ultimately able to carry out the mission, but the injuries he sustained and the damage to the Chinook were indicative of the types of dangers that the U.S. forces involved in the audacious raid faced.
It’s clear that there were “some serious gunfights” during the Maduro raid, Petraeus said, also highlighting the fact that more than 30 Cuban special operators were killed during the operation. “So, in a way, yes, we’ve been fortunate,” he said, adding that while U.S. forces are the “best in the world at that kind of operation,” there are still occasions where “luck does help.”
Petraeus also said that it’s “remarkable” that neither Israel nor the United States had an aircraft malfunction over Iran during the 12-day war last June. “That itself is just extraordinary because all it takes is one failure and somebody punches out over Tehran and all of a sudden you have Americans being dragged through the streets,” Petraeus said.
Similarly, retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, the former commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, said he would attribute the success of military operations under Trump 2.0 so far “to the professionalism of the forces that were involved,” but he also emphasized that “good luck is always a part of any military operation.”
The question now is whether luck will continue to be on Trump’s side if he orders another attack on Iran. Caine reportedly told Trump that the operations he is considering against Iran would be even more challenging than the raid to capture Maduro.
“A strike against Iran is significantly different in so many ways than an attack to get Maduro,” Hodges said, both in terms of scale and complexity. The Maduro operation was “as dangerous and risky as you could possibly imagine,” he said, but any operation against Iran will also be “difficult.”
“This is not a video game,” Hodges added.
Retired Army Gen. Joseph Votel, who oversaw U.S. military operations in the Middle East from 2016 to 2019 as the head of Centcom, emphasized that U.S. strikes are not an inevitability—a view that Petraeus shares—and said that the military buildup in the region appears to be an attempt to “coerce” the Iranian regime into reaching an agreement. But he also underscored that any military actions carry risk, including the potential to lose service members and important equipment.
“There’s always risks with these activities, and you can’t control everything. You can’t control the enemy,” Votel said. “The enemy always has a vote in these activities. They get lucky once and we lose an aircraft, we have a pilot downed behind enemy lines, that will certainly be a challenge. That’ll be a problem for us, and we’ll have to respond.”
History has repeatedly shown that the loss of U.S. service members, whether in limited operations or broader conflicts, can put a significant dent in a president’s public approval rating and prompt fierce criticism from Congress. As Trump mulls over his next steps, he will be forced to consider such factors—particularly amid an election year in the United States and at a time when his polling numbers have plummeted.
When asked about how an operation gone wrong in Iran could impact Trump politically, Petraeus said that “he’s historically unpopular right now,” but it “depends on the circumstances.”
Speaking from his experiences with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Petraeus said, “Public opinion hung in there for a very long time with respect to the two long wars—as long as people felt that we were making progress … But a lot has to do with, again, what’s the sense of how important this is? What was the logic in the decision-making process? Did it appear to be thought out? There’s a lot of dynamics when it comes to that kind of thing.”
There have also been concerns raised over the fact that the Trump administration has not clearly outlined what the overall goal or endgame would be in any potential attack on Iran, which could increase the risks of such an operation. “The chances for American casualties are very real, and the fact that the president has not clearly identified the strategic objective is a problem,” Hodges said.
Votel similarly said he’s “very concerned about what the end states are that we’re looking for.”
“These are important. That’s what we’re going to measure ourselves against. Being able to articulate those is important,” Votel said. “It’s also important for the American people to understand, if military action is taken, what that military action is about and what its intended outcome is.”
Trump initially threatened strikes on Iran in January amid Tehran’s brutal crackdown on mass anti-government protests, during which security forces are estimated to have killed thousands of demonstrators. But Trump has since shifted to threatening strikes if a deal isn’t reached with Iran to end its nuclear program. Washington also hopes that any eventual agreement will address Iran’s ballistic missile program and support for proxy groups in the region. Tehran has suggested that it is willing to accept some limitations on its nuclear activities, but it refuses to do so with its ballistic missile arsenal.
“I think [Trump] is quite sensitive to risk. And in this case, I think he really wants to intimidate [Iran]. He says in his own book, before you sit down with the other guy, flex every muscle and punch him in the nose so that you have max leverage. In this case, I think he really would rather get a deal than have to carry out a military operation, but the likelihood of a deal is probably fairly low,” Petraeus said.
Recent reports indicate that Trump would likely order an initial limited strike to ramp up pressure on Iran in the ongoing negotiations, which are expected to continue in Geneva on Feb. 26. And if it is not successful, then he would consider a far larger attack aimed at pushing out Iran’s leadership.
Caine has reportedly warned Trump that a lengthier operation would carry heavier risks due to already strained munitions stockpiles and a lack of support from allies in the region—with some Arab countries reportedly signaling to Washington that they wouldn’t allow bases in their country or their airspace to be used in an attack on Iran.
Given the stakes and the complicated array of circumstances swirling around the situation, Hodges expressed concern over the lack of discussion on the issue in Congress.
“Congress has been ignored. The White House has literally ignored their obligation to keep Congress informed. And I don’t get the feeling that they’re planning on changing their attitude about that anytime soon,” Hodges said, pointing to the war on terror as a cautionary tale for Trump in this regard.
“We spent a lot of time, money, and lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and no president of any party ever really laid out clearly to Congress why these things are so important—why we’re doing this. And therefore, popular support back in the United States dried up. And both of those wars, especially Afghanistan, ended in failure,” Hodges said.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe gave a classified briefing on Iran to top lawmakers on Feb. 24, but Democrats are calling for the White House to hold a more public discussion on the matter. In comments to reporters on possible Iran strikes, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer urged the Trump administration to “make its case to the American people as something as important as this.”
In response to a request for comment on concerns that have been raised over the potential risks of a U.S. operation against Iran and the lack of clarity on Trump’s endgame, a White House official said, “The President has been clear that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons or the capacity to build them, and that they cannot enrich uranium.”
“President Trump will make the ultimate determination about where we draw red lines in negotiations. He has stated repeatedly that if we cannot make a very fair and good deal, ‘it will be very difficult for them,’ and he demonstrated with Operation Midnight Hammer that he means what he says when he says Iran should make a deal,” the official added.
