The Dawn of New Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei is Shrouded in Chaos as Title Equals a Death Row Sentence. But an allied ground invasion could meet the same fate as his.

The Greek Courier

By Yiannis Damellos

Mojtaba Khamenei, the second son of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, has ascended to the position his father held for nearly four decades, which ended with his death during US-Israeli air strikes. He now inherits an electric chair at the top of a system significantly weakened after the 88-member Assembly of Experts made a decision many Iranians feared—transforming the Islamic Republic into a dynasty. The uncertainty surrounding this new leadership, including potential consequences, adds complexity to an already unstable situation. 

At the same time, analysts suggest that any ground attack against Iran by American, Israeli, or Kurdish forces could be countered by robust Iranian defensive strategies, especially in challenging terrains like the Zagros and Alborz mountain ranges, as well as in the vast deserts of Dasht-e Kavir and Dasht-e Lut. While the U.S. has the capability to deploy bunker busters, operating in this rugged terrain may prove hazardous and could lead to higher American casualties.

New Day, New Targets, More Death, Less Oil

The military landscape is increasingly fraught. Israel has intensified its airstrikes on critical infrastructure across Iran, targeting oil storage facilities and military installations. Residents of Tehran awakened to thick plumes of smoke overshadowing their city, a vivid reminder of the ongoing strife. In recent actions, Israeli Defense Forces have claimed successful operations against Iranian fighter jets, further asserting their commitment to neutralizing Iran’s military capabilities. The toll of these strikes is not confined to military targets; civilian casualties have begun to mount, igniting international condemnation and fears of a humanitarian crisis spilling across borders.

The ripple effects of the conflict extend far beyond Iran’s borders. A Pakistani national tragically lost their life in Dubai due to missile debris, underscoring the collateral damage inflicted by this brutal showdown. As global energy markets feel the strain, gas prices soar, and everyday Americans voice concerns over the rising costs of living driven by the war. Many are left grappling with the burdens of conflict while the political elite seem untouched. President Trump, in an effort to downplay the escalating crises, recently referred to wartime price spikes as merely a "glitch," dismissing the qualms of citizens struggling to fill their tanks.

Amidst the chaos, the Iranian government is grappling with its own internal struggles. Recent comments from Iranian officials hint at a dual strategy: while they appear to soften their stance toward neighboring Gulf states, the rhetoric remains combative toward the West. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf has warned that the continued conflict could jeopardize global oil supplies, framing the war as detrimental not only to Iran but also to America's interests. His remarks serve as both a threat and an appeal for dialogue, showcasing Iran’s precarious position.

The international community, particularly regional powers like China, is keenly aware of the ramifications should the conflict spiral out of control. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has called for an immediate ceasefire, advocating for diplomatic discussions to prevent further escalation. As Xi Jinping prepares to meet with President Trump, the potential for a broader dialogue about Middle Eastern stability may be on the horizon, though reaching a consensus remains fraught with challenges.

Geographic and Strategic Considerations of an Allied Ground Invasion

The Americans and the Israelis may bomb as much as they want, but for Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu to achieve true success in this war, ground troops must be deployed to install a new regime once the ground war has been won. This is not an easy task, especially if one considers the geographical complexities of such an effort. 

To start with, the Zagros Mountains create a natural barrier with rugged terrain, which can be advantageous for defensive operations. This geography can impede troop movements and limit the operational capabilities of mechanized units. Iranian forces may leverage mountainous terrain for ambushes and fortified positions, making it difficult for invading forces to conduct large-scale operations without significant casualties.

If the Iranians establish well-fortified defensive positions along key routes, they could effectively slow down or halt an advancing force. This includes building bunkers, utilizing natural cover, and creating supply lines that support sustained combat operations. Historical military strategy, especially in Afghanistan suggests that well-prepared defensive positions can neutralize the advantages of technologically superior armed forces.

The Iranian Military Strategy largely depends on Asymmetric Warfare, as the country has a strong history of employing unconventional tactics such as guerrilla warfare, utilizing proxy forces, and leveraging the local population. This strategy could complicate a direct ground assault by conventional forces and the Pentagon knows it. also, the Revolutionary Guard and allied militia groups could launch counterattacks or conduct sabotage operations behind advancing lines to disrupt supply chains and communications.

The Iranian military likely prepares for potential ground invasions by stockpiling weapons, conducting training exercises, and mobilizing reserves, especially in critical areas such as the Zagros Mountains. The question is, how many of these weapons have been neutralized already and how many still remain intact. Combined with local knowledge of the terrain, effective stockpiling could provide Iranian forces with insights for effective defensive engagements.

Furthermore, American and Israeli ground forces have high technical capabilities but face significant logistical challenges in mountainous terrain. Operations would require extensive air support and reconnaissance to navigate effectively. This is where the Kurdish forces, particularly the Peshmerga in northern Iraq come in, as they have experience in mountainous terrain and could effectively collaborate with U.S. and Israeli forces. However, political dynamics in the region, including relations with Iran, could complicate this cooperation, because of the desire of the Kurds to eventually create a new and autonomous state.

Also, Ground forces may also face international and domestic political pressure regarding prolonged engagements, affecting the scope and duration of any potential military action.

Ultimately, any ground operation aimed at regime change would require sustained commitment and resources, without which the chance of significant success diminishes. Therefore, while an invasion is technologically feasible, the complexities of geography, strategy, and ground conditions suggest that any ground advance could be met with substantial Iranian resistance, making a prolonged conflict likely.

In essence, unless effective strategies and overwhelming force are employed to overcome these defenses, achieving regime change through a ground attack alone poses significant risks and challenges.