What are Trump’s military options?

What the report says

Al Jazeera published an opinion article by Harlan Ullman on July 28, 2026, examining what military choices US President Donald Trump may have as tensions with Iran continue. Ullman wrote that Trump had reportedly paused plans for large-scale attacks on Iran after White House consultations, amid strong domestic pressure linked to rising economic costs and polling that, according to the article, shows nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose the war.

The piece says US forces and missile-defense assets have been moved into the region, including two Marine Expeditionary Units and elements of the 82nd or 101st Airborne, but argues those deployments are not enough for major ground operations. It also notes reports that the US and Gulf allies may face shortages in defensive missile stocks and Tomahawk missiles, potentially limiting a broader campaign.

Ullman outlines three military options and describes each as highly risky: expanded air and missile strikes, a ground invasion or seizure of key Iranian-linked sites, and even a nuclear demonstration. He argues that wider strikes could hit civilian infrastructure and provoke Iranian retaliation, while a ground campaign would require far more troops and could produce heavy US casualties. The article describes nuclear use as carrying catastrophic humanitarian, technological and geopolitical consequences.

The author concludes that the least damaging path would be for Trump to claim victory and pursue negotiations, including efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb. This matters because the article frames the Iran crisis not only as a military challenge, but also as a potential trigger for wider economic disruption and regional instability.