There’s a 63 Percent Chance the US Invades Iran by April 30

Marines Arrive in Middle East. Pentagon weighs sending 10,000 more. Polymarket Rules Polymarket Rules: This market will resolve to “Yes” if active US military personnel physically enter Iran at any point by the listed date (ET). Otherwise, this market will resolve to “No”. Military special operation forces will qualify; however, intelligence operatives will not count. US military personnel must physically enter the terrestrial territory of Iran to qualify. Entering Iran’s maritime or aerial territory will not count. Military contractors, military advisors, or high-ranking US service members entering Iran for diplomatic purposes (and their accompanying entourage) will not qualify. The resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting. Note: Only US military personnel who deliberately enter the terrestrial territory of Iran for operational purposes (e.g., military, humanitarian, etc.) will qualify. Pilots who are shot down, or other cases in which US military personnel do not deliberately enter the terrestrial territory of Iran, will not qualify. The odd of an invasion by April 30 are 63 percent. For the full year, the odds only go up 71 percent. If I played this market and thought an invasion was likely, I would bet on December not April. The time value is worth more than the difference in my estimation. One could also try various combinations of unequal bets against April but on December. Another 10,000 Ground Troops to the Middle East The Wall Street Journal reports Pentagon Weighs Sending Another 10,000 Ground Troops to the Middle East The Pentagon is looking at sending up to 10,000 additional ground troops to the Middle East to give President Trump more military options even as he weighs peace talks with Tehran, Department of Defense officials with knowledge of the planning said. The force, which would likely include infantry and armored vehicles, would be added to the roughly 5,000 Marines and the thousands of paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division who have already been ordered to the region. It is unclear where precisely forces will go in the Middle East, but they will likely be within striking distance of Iran and Kharg Island, a crucial oil export hub off Iran’s coast. Trump has repeatedly said he will open the Strait of Hormuz, with or without the help of U.S. allies. “All announcements regarding troop deployments will come from the Department of War. As we have said, President Trump always has all military options at his disposal,” said Anna Kelly, the deputy White House press secretary. A spokesperson for U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for U.S. forces in the Middle East, declined to comment. Military Experts Break Down Capabilities PBS reports As more U.S. forces head to Mideast, military experts break down capabilities As President Trump says he’s working on a deal to end the Iran war, more troops are heading to the region. John Yang discussed the capabilities of the forces and how they could be used with Joel Rayburn and Frederic Wehrey. Rayburn is a retired Army colonel and is now at the Hudson Institute. Wehrey is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. John Yang: Jack Rayburn, let me start with you. What new capabilities will the United States forces have with these new troops? Col. Joel Rayburn (Ret.): Well, the troops of the 82nd Airborne Division that are being deployed, that’s part of the Rapid Deployment Force that can deploy anywhere in the world with very short notice. The 82nd Airborne Division, the brigades and battalions of that division are uniquely trained for forcible entry into contested territory. And they usually do that in order to pave the way for, open the way for follow-on, more robust, heavier forces to come in after them. So that’s an insertion force. The Marine forces that are coming, there are two Marine expeditionary units that are on their way as part of amphibious ready groups. Those are the kind of forces that are trained and equipped to do amphibious assaults onto islands, onto ports or to seize vessels. So, two very similar forces, move rapidly, be able to be able to seize key infrastructure quickly. John Yang: Fred, anything you don’t want to add to that? Lt. Col. Frederic Wehrey (Ret.): I agree. These are remarkable forces. They strike deep. They strike hard. They’re quick Response Forces. As was mentioned, they’re designed to seize assets very quickly so that other forces can flow into a region as part of a larger assault force. They’re not designed for longer-duration operations. And they’re also, I should add, self-contained, especially the Marine units. They have their own air support, their own armor, their own helicopters. And that makes them able to really go anywhere in the world and operate autonomously. John Yang: Jack, how would you expect these troops to be used? Col. Joel Rayburn (Ret.): Yes, I think clearly what’s happening here is that the president and Central Command are moving these assets into the theater to signal that they have the option, they have the capability of seizing islands such as Kharg Island or seizing potentially the islands that the Iranian regime uses in order to threaten the Strait of Hormuz. There are several islands closer to the Strait of Hormuz from which they traditionally have done that, or also to provide supporting kind of seizure operations if there’s a military forcing of the strait. So it really increases the president and Central Command’s options. John Yang: Fred, are these things a good idea? Is it a good idea to do this? Lt. Col. Frederic Wehrey (Ret.): They’re, quite frankly, fraught with risk. I mean, very — obviously, these forces could accomplish their tactical objectives. They could seize the island. They could destroy coastal missile batteries. They could seize various sites along the Strait of Hormuz. But then the question is, what next? And, really, the question is, does that tactical advantage become a strategic liability? Because those forces are now exposed. We know that Iran has trained for this sort of scenario. There’s a saying among military planners that the enemy always gets a vote, right? And so the Iranians may have multiple retaliation options against these forces, against staging areas, against the supply lines. The other big risk is that it will not completely free the Strait of Hormuz, right? It will certainly degrade Iran’s ability to disrupt the traffic coming in, but it won’t solve the problem completely. And then I should also add, we have seen this before, where there’s an initial force, and because it doesn’t achieve its strategic objectives, it may achieve its tactical objectives, those strategic objectives remain unobtained or unfulfilled, that requires more forces. You have to set up a buffer zone to protect those forces. And very quickly, you’re in a situation of mission creep. John Yang: Jack, what do you think of — make of the fact that these forces were not in the region when this war began? What does that tell you? Col. Joel Rayburn (Ret.): I think it means these were an option. I mean, look, military planners plan everything to the nth degree. I used to be one. I think Fred did too. You planned scenarios in branches and sequels to all of your base plans. I just think it just means this was an option that they maybe hoped not to have to employ, but also they adapted to the situation. I think, look, as far as whether it’s a good idea, it’s a high-risk tactical operation, but the payoff is huge. If there’s a U.S. seizure of Kharg Island, if there’s a U.S. forcing of the strait, militarily forcing of the strait, sort of game over for Tehran at that point. They’re pretty much — they’re out of strategic military options. They have been quite degraded. We are the enemy that has gotten a vote in their game plan. They are off their game plan. I don’t think their command-and-control is coherent enough to be able to adapt. I think our forces are inside their OODA loop, if you will. So, as I say, tactical risk of that kind of operation is high. The payoff strategically would also be quite high. John Yang: And, Joel, I apologize for calling you Jack. Fred, are these troops, do you think that they are leveraged for negotiations? Or are the — is the United States looking to change the trajectory of this war? Lt. Col. Frederic Wehrey (Ret.): I think both could be at play. And I agree with Joel that the military has obviously thought through multiple scenarios, but I’m just very concerned that the Iranians have thought this through before. And we don’t know their strategic calculus. You seize a critical oil terminal like Kharg, you could empower hard-liners. You could really force the regime to dig in even deeper. I don’t think it’s game over for them. I think they have got redundancy. They have got resilience. They could open conflict in another theater. They could engage proxies. So we don’t know their retaliation options. I think they see this as a long game, right? I mean, you’re talking about a generation of leadership that weathered the Iran-Iraq War. This is very short term for them, right? And so simply seizing these islands and these assets, I don’t know if it’s — I don’t think it’s going to change their strategic calculus about suddenly giving in to Trump’s terms. John Yang: Fred, I want to stay with you for a second. There’s been a lot of talk about the rhetoric of the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth. He talked about no quarter, no mercy for our enemies. He said there would be no stupid rules of engagement. Early this week, he prayed that every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness. What do you make of this? Lt. Col. Frederic Wehrey (Ret.): Well, it’s, quite frankly, shocking. It’s irresponsible, strategically reckless, ethically problematic on multiple fronts. I mean, look, the Constitution specifies a separation between religion and state, between church and state. And so public officials are not supposed to use their office to push a particular religious vision. And that’s exactly what the secretary is doing with this very apocalyptic Christian nationalist vision. The second issue is, the U.S. armed forces are very diverse. You have men and women of diverse faiths or no faiths at all. And that’s going to create frustration or alienation. It’s not a good leadership strategy. You’re not building inclusion. I mean, the other problem with framing this… John Yang: Fred, I’m going to interrupt you, because we’re running out of time, and I’d like to hear Joel’s thoughts on this. Col. Joel Rayburn (Ret.): Yes, and I think Secretary Hegseth is the secretary at war. He’s trying to explain to his forces who are engaged while they’re fighting. And he’s trying to inspire them. He’s trying to — he’s trying to get — show them confidence in the campaign. And I think he’s also — he’s also a little bit frustrated about the depiction of a campaign which is a one-sided contest being — as being something other than that. Weeks of Occupation? With just 20,000 troops? Desert Storm Comparison Operation Desert Storm took place from January 17, 1991, to February 28, 1991. The US-led combat phase began with an intense aerial bombardment on January 17, followed by a ground offensive starting February 24, ultimately liberating Kuwait from Iraqi occupation in 42 days. The United States deployed approximately 697,000 troops to the Gulf region for Operation Desert Storm, making it the largest contributor to the coalition forces. These forces, combined with coalition partners, formed a massive military presence to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, with over 500,000 U.S. troops located in Saudi Arabia. Now we are talking 15,000 to 20,000 against a much better equipped Iran. Seriously, what the hell? US Would Need a Million Troops The Independent reports The U.S. would need a million troops to control Iran – not the few thousand currently on their way Donald Trump is thinking about sending an extra 10,000 soldiers to the Middle East, to join around 3,000 paratroopers and 5,000 U.S. Marines in carrying out ground attacks on Iran. This is laughable. To succeed, Trump would have to deploy every single member of the U.S. armed forces to Iran – upwards of 1.3 million. At the height of U.S.-led operations in Iraq, during the 2007-2008 “surge” ordered by George Bush Jr, around 185,000 American and allied troops were sent to quell an insurgency that had grown since its dictator had been toppled four years earlier by an allied invasion. Add that number to the 450,000-550,000 Iraqi government forces working with the allies. And then remember that the so-called Islamic State, formed by thugs from al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Baath party, took much of the north of the country in 2014, set up a “state,” and sponsored global terror for years. So three-quarters of a million soldiers were not enough to sort out Iraq. The number of U.S. troops currently tasked with, or being considered for, carrying out military operations against a nation of 90 million people, which is about the size of Western Europe, is less than were sent to fight in Helmand, southern Afghanistan, at the peak of that conflict. These are the kind of scenes that Trump promised Americans would never again have to witness in unnecessary wars of choice, especially not in the Middle East. Kharg Island is more than 300 miles north of the Strait of Hormuz. It’s a valuable economic target, but would leave U.S. forces badly exposed to Iranian air attacks. And any coastal operations will, inevitably, take such troops deeper into Iran, where the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps looks forward to applying the tactics and techniques it exported to Iraq and trained Hezbollah to use in Lebanon, on soldiers wearing the uniform of the “Great Satan.” Lieutenant General Sir Nick Borton, a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan who was also Director of Overseas Operations in the UK Ministry of Defence, estimates that the U.S. and any allies who joined it in an Iranian ground attack would need “many hundreds of thousands.” Some former Nato generals have said that the U.S. would need to send “over a million, well over a million” troops to succeed in a ground war in the country. “Ukraine is less than half the size and population of Iran. Russia invaded with 250,000, failed, and now has 800,000 there and still not winning. So one can conclude that a successful operation on a large scale in Iran would need a lot more than that. Of course, there could be a tactical operation to seize Kharg Island, or part of the coastline would require less – but for how long?” he told The Independent. Iran has about 600,000 men in its ground forces, including the IRGC, the regular army, and the Basij militia. All of them are spoiling to get the U.S. sucked into an “Iraq 2.0” – the “nightmare” scenario. So, for the Trump administration to send U.S. troops to the Iranian conflict may be an exciting activity for people in the Oval Office. But it is pointless, and risks delivering to the Iranians more Americans to kill. April 30 or bust? If so, then what? If not, then what? Trump has no good options. Related Posts March 27, 2026: What Happened at Trump’s Insane Iran War Cabinet Meeting Yesterday? Trump discussed custom Sharpie pens, his love of himself, the Triumphal Arch, and fake gold. March 27, 2026: Stocks Down Five Straight Weeks, US Oil Tops $100, Huge Republican Infighting Weekly summary: Dow and Nasdaq in correction, bond yields up, $WTIC settles near $100. March 28, 2026: How Trump Treats Saudi Allies “He Didn’t Think He’d Be Kissing My Ass” That comment is on tape at Trump’s Future Investment conference. This has been repeated many times. 80% of young men wouldn’t qualify for a draft because of a long list of issues (Pentagon study). If Trump invades, it will be an economic, military and political disaster – possibly worse than Vietnam because of loss of the Petrodollar and inflation. OTOH, it will bring US hegemony to an end permanently. Rob Schneider calls for US to ‘restore military draft for our nation’s young people’ amid Iran war Wow…that’s weird. Let me check his Early Life…. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Schneider And just when we thought it couldn’t get worse? It does… Restoring production on Kharg and indeed the Persian gulf will take a serious amount of time and resources.The global economy has been sucker punched with brass knuckles. The US may not need or want the strait to re-open (Blame it on Iran)! With the US being the largest exporter of refined oil products? LNG? Helium? We are relatively self-reliant and have an agile and creative economy… To me, Occam’s razor says disruption and selective profiteering is the goal. No one is talking about Epstein these daze. Chinas chip industry without helium is crushed. Cashflow to the Middle East is crushed. Many competing nations come to a standstill. Is global disruption the goal? This could be simple but massive profiteering without any good solutions for the Gulf States, or those that are dependent on them for energy. 15,000 troops is not an invasion capable or occupying force! Hmmmmmmmm? Any thoughts? Sometimes it is best to check your premises and re-evaluate everything. Is disruption the goal? If so, it is working! The invasion alternative is a known quagmire. No one could be that stupid and squander our resources & servicemen’s lives. 63%…????….try 100% There, fixed it for you. This is a complete Farce … so far the Iranians haven’t given a crap about any announcement made by the US so scare tactics aren’t working very well … simply put the economic situation of the world can’t wait much longer for this situation to be resolved one way or the other … so somebody needs to get off their ass and do something …. and Very Soon … “L.O.S.E.R.” Drumpf is accelerating what started a long time ago. “F u very much” to voters who voted uniparty all these years. Because they failed to find their way out of a paper bag, I look forward to savoring various brands of cat food when my social security buys little else. Planning should be done months before the war starts. If Pentagon does it now it is not planning, it is improvisation. In this war Pentagon is weeks behind the curve, just trying to catch up with situation. It is not a fault of US military, it is the fault of political leadership which gave wrong marching orders to Pentagon. Israel is more and more focusing on its war in southern Lebanon. The US is going to end up fighting Iran alone. Since everybody “knows” that they are there to take Kharg island and other ones and media sources claim insider knowledge from officials I would conclude that the real objective is something else. Iran has rushed men and equipment to those islands as the rumors came out so if it effectively is a psyop it worked as expected because Iran has to defend them even if they suspect it is a feint. In my humble view Kharg is out. It’s somewhere else. I imagine Trump/Hegseth would go for it. But also assume the Generals on the other hand may have looked at a map of where Kharg Island is. Vessels would be exposed to Iranian attacks for 100’s of km and air drop from slow transports is even more likely to result in massive casualties. Attacks on the islands at the mouth of the Gulf more likely but still risky. Perhaps a landing in far east Iran to test the resolve of the Govt and people. Col. Joel Rayburn (Ret.): I think it means these were an option. I mean, look, military planners plan everything to the nth degree. I used to be one. I think Fred did too. You planned scenarios in branches and sequels to all of your base plans. ==== hey planner.! how is that vietnam , iraq , afganistan thing going on ? jesus! if there’s a U.S. seizure of Kharg Island, if there’s a U.S. forcing of the strait, militarily forcing of the strait, sort of game over for Tehran at that point. They’re pretty much — they’re out of strategic military options. They have been quite degraded. === jesus! but they will likely be within striking distance of Iran and Kharg Island, a crucial oil export hub off Iran’s coast. ==== i like reading western media material constructed for dumb fuc11ked Americans. and i like esp those catch phrases: decapitated, crucial oil export , game changer, game over , tc etc === so lets deconstruct this ‘crucial oil export hub ‘ whole game ! =1 IRAN produce oil/gas, somewhere outside Kharg Island! why did not USA/israel bomb those sites? =2 Iran move oil/gas into Kharg Island using pipelines, esp visible ones that actually connect mainland and Island via water! why did not USA/israel bomb those pipelines? =3 THERE IS whole infrastructure on island. IT SEEMS USA tried to bomb that! =4 and last after oil/gas delivered into island , oil/gas is moved using ships from island ,so why did not USA/israel bomb those ships? it seems trump bragged how USA can bomb any Iranian ship in Hormuz! so what is problem? ====== so after analyzing this simple information ,you do realize what is plan! bring troops, take over island, take some losses and DECLARE A VICTORY for USA ppl! and SPRING/ SUMMER IS OVER.. !! THAT IS THE PLAN. alx @ alx. Sometimes I struggle to distinguish between what you’re quoting and your own commentary. If you don’t mind, please format your contributions a little differently. Trump is a gambler. And the more he feels stuck in this situation, the more willing he is to take risks in order to free himself from the quagmire he created. The Islands of Larak and Hormuz are the choke points of the Strait. If the US can gain a permanent foothold there, it would make much harder for Iran to continue to block the Strait. The problem is that any US force stationed there would be subjected to constant and relentless bombardment and would be shredded to pieces. So I’d not be surprised if Trump orders the Marines to take the islands of Larak or/and Hormuz in order to control the Strait and then threaten to nuke Tehran if the US troops there come under fire. Thinking that with this approach, he can free up the Strait while not having to carry out a full blown invasion. I am not saying that is a good or wise strategy. Just that he is crazy and desperate enough to threaten that. The Islands of Larak and Hormuz are the choke points of the Strait. If the US can gain a permanent foothold there, it would make much harder for Iran to continue to block the Strait.\ == another geo challenged person who cant open map on Google buddy , Hormuz is middle point between persian gulf (1000km), and Oman gulf (300 km length) catch is : it is Iran who controls own side of Persian gulf and Oman gulf! ===== yes , Persian and Oman gulfs are wider, and yet pretty much under attack from any point from Iran side. got it? do you know what it would take to control 1000+ km of sea shorelines to stop military send UAVS on Iran side to hit ships? alx =hen threaten to nuke Tehran if the US troops there come under fire. what is going to happen if Putin would nuke Ukraine, or China Taiwan or N. Korea S. korea? ===== do you know Pandora;s box meaning? alx My guess would be to control the Strait of Hormuz. I would bet yes by the end of April. I still might since I got my invite to join Polymarket. Kalshi doesn’t have predictions on specific military actions. But more US casualties would be very unpopular. But then maybe he thinks opening the Strait is worth bringing down oil prices. Nothing would surprise me from this sick SOB. He told everyone he wanted to avoid foreign wars, but here we are. =But then maybe he thinks opening the Strait is worth bringing down oil prices. notion that direct open military operation inside Strait would ‘bring down prices’ is really funny!! >> He told everyone he wanted to avoid foreign wars, but here we are. People saw and heard what he wanted them to hear — when he spoke out both sides of his mouth. After this, Trump voters have no right to call Kamala voters stupid. I had *hoped* for better than Biden. (Such a low bar!). And I am seriously surprised by how bad the new admin is. But I warned people he is not a peacemaker. Before his first term, Drumpf criticised the Iraq war and hired Bolton and Abrahms. He armed the Zelensky proxy, destroyed the treaty with Iran, assassinated one of its leaders, effectively stole Citgo from Venezuela, and continued the destruction of Syria. He exposed himself as a thug in his first term. Before his second term, he boasted about his covid response. Every cucktard who ever complained about mRNA jabs, fauci, and lockdowns and then voted for this guy is a stupid fuck. He also bragged about arming Zelensky, threatening to bomb Moscow, and saying he could end the war in 24 hours. You do not say these things simultaneously without being a liar. You do not vote for a person saying these things without being stupid. (That goes for all my personal friends, who all voted for him. No amount of explanation seems to work.) People who vote uniparty waste their vote, every single time.