{"id":325419,"date":"2026-03-27T08:10:39","date_gmt":"2026-03-27T08:10:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=325419"},"modified":"2026-03-29T06:59:36","modified_gmt":"2026-03-29T06:59:36","slug":"will-president-trump-send-u-s-troops-on-suicide-mission-to-take-control-of-strait-of-hormuz","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=325419","title":{"rendered":"Will President Trump send U.S. troops on ‘suicide mission’ to take control of Strait of Hormuz?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Leo Hohmann \u2013 Leo\u2019s Newsletter March 26, 2026<\/strong><\/h1>\n

President Trump is massing American troops in the Middle East, while talking about a peace deal with a country, Iran, whose leaders deny they are in any such talks and want no part of Trump\u2019s deals.<\/p>\n

Elements from the 82nd Airborne Division headquarters and a brigade combat team will deploy to the Middle East, the Pentagon confirmed in a statement Wednesday.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe can confirm elements of the 82nd Airborne Division HQs, some division enablers and the 1st BCT will be deploying to the CENTCOM AOR,\u201d a Defense Department spokesperson said.<\/p>\n

Military analysts estimate that a combined 10,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops, consisting of Marines and Army units, are on the way, the first installment of which is due to arrive in the region this weekend.<\/p>\n

Never mind that this is exactly the type of operation that candidate Trump repeatedly said he would never commit to, putting thousands of boots on the ground in a hostile Middle Eastern country. Despite the rhetoric, I predicted back in January and February that any military action that involved regime change in Iran would necessarily have to involve ground troops. (I reported on <\/em>Feb. 19<\/a><\/em><\/strong> that ground troops would be deployed and I reported as far back as <\/em>Jan. 6<\/a><\/em><\/strong> that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz if attacked by the U.S.\/Israel, launching a much larger war than what Trump was indicating would be necessary<\/em>.)<\/p>\n

But what are the chances of success should American troops hit the ground of Iran in the coming days or weeks?<\/p>\n

I\u2019m no military expert but I\u2019m not sure how it behooves the U.S. operation to announce such troop deployments ahead of time, giving the Iranians time to prepare even more than they already are.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s especially true if you are sending only 10,000 to 50,000 troops into a country like Iran that has a million men in uniform, including 150,000 highly trained elite members of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps (IRGC). One would think that maybe the element of surprise would come in handy when you find yourselves so vastly outnumbered? But again, that\u2019s just me. What do I know?<\/p>\n

This wouldn\u2019t be the first time a Western army was sent on a suicide mission to take control of a narrow strait of water, where the enemy is firmly dug in with the capability to fire on the undermanned invaders.<\/p>\n

Historian Mark Cartwright, writing at WorldHistory.org<\/a><\/strong>, notes the World War I Battle of Gallipoli serves as a lesson worth studying. In that famous battle, the Ottoman Turks successfully beat back an attempt by the British and allied forces to capture and control the Dardanelles Strait, a narrow body of water not unlike the Strait of Hormuz now controlled by Iran.<\/p>\n

Cartwright writes of the World War I battle that took place in 1915:<\/p>\n

\u201cThis major expedition involved British, French, Australian, and New Zealand (ANZAC) troops and was launched to break through the Dardanelles into the Black Sea, thereby providing a new supply route to Russia. The Ottoman defenses remained robust, and an eight-month-long trench battle<\/a><\/strong> of attrition ultimately ended in an Allied withdrawal. Infamous as a costly failure, the campaign resulted in 250,000 Allied casualties, and its staunchest promoter, Winston Churchill, was sacked from his role in the British Admiralty.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to Cartwright\u2019s account, the Turks had the high ground while the invaders had no cover as they tried to trudge over rugged terrain, a factor magnified even more so in Iran, where the Hormuz Strait is flanked by miles of mountains, caves, cliffs and valleys.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Allied forces, with little natural cover to take advantage of around Cape Helles, soon found themselves pinned down by enemy fire, particularly from well-protected machine guns,\u201d Cartwright writes (his entire article is worth reading<\/em> here<\/a><\/strong>).<\/p>\n

In short, the Dardanelles became a catastrophe soaked in British and French blood, despite the fact that they had what at the time was considered a vastly superior fighting force. Today\u2019s modern drone warfare complicates the situation even more for U.S. troops trying to take control of the Strait of Hormuz.<\/p>\n

Military historian Col. Douglas MacGregor (retired) also points to the Battle of Gallipoli as an indicator of what could happen in the Strait of Hormuz should Trump decide to launch an invasion there.<\/p>\n

For more insights into this fascinating historical analysis that someone in Trump\u2019s inner circle is surely aware of, fast-forward to the 44:38 mark in MacGregor\u2019s video interview<\/a><\/strong> below with Lt. Col. Daniel Davis.<\/p>\n