President Trump expands troop dispatch to Iran, but analysts say it could backfire

Nearly a month into the Iran war, the United States is preparing to send thousands more soldiers to the Middle East, expanding a military presence that already has tens of thousands of Americans in the region.

But analysts say the military buildup signals something more than preparations for a ground attack, suggesting it is an exercise in coercive diplomacy aimed at increasing influence as President Donald Trump ramps up pressure on Iran to come to the negotiating table.

“President Trump is essentially saying that you (Iranians) can get a deal now or face more serious consequences in the future,” Rafael Cohen, a senior political scientist at the Randland School of Public Policy, told CNBC in an email. Cohen pointed out that the military buildup gives the president the option to negotiate from force rather than just attack.

Washington and Tehran have struggled to find a path towards starting negotiations over peace terms, with each side claiming the upper hand in the conflict while portraying the other as more desperate.

The United States has circulated a 15-point peace plan that calls for a complete halt to Iran’s nuclear program and significant limits on the range and size of its missile arsenal, similar to the one touted in February before negotiations broke down and led to a joint U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran.

The Iranian government has declared that the conflict will not end unless the United States pays war reparations and recognizes Iran’s “exercise of sovereignty” in the Strait of Hormuz. Earlier Thursday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said there were no negotiations between Iran and the United States.

Pakistan has offered to facilitate peace talks aimed at a “comprehensive solution” to the ongoing war. But neither Washington nor the Iranian government accepts such arguments.

At the same time, the U.S. on Tuesday ordered thousands more soldiers from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division to the region for quick deployment in case additional military action, such as seizing the Kharg Island oil port or reopening the Strait, could occur if negotiations stall.

Analysts say these forces may give the president more leverage in negotiations, but they also risk inflaming Tehran’s anger and provoking a harsher response.

“Diplomacy is almost always supported by force,” Iranian-American historian Arash Azizi said in an email to CNBC, adding that under the Trump administration, this has been done “more openly and more crudely.”

The administration’s messaging has been wildly inconsistent, with President Trump reportedly hoping for a quick end to the war, while Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has continued to issue bellicose warnings: “We believe we are part of this negotiation. We are negotiating with bombs.”

Military hostilities in the region continue to spiral, with Iran’s military reportedly announcing in a statement early Thursday that it had attacked Israeli satellite bases and bases in the Middle East housing U.S. troops.

Analysts say the gap between what the United States and Iran want remains wide, and even if the two sides manage to find common ground, Israel will be another wild card.

Israel has yet to publicly comment on the peace terms during the recent war of words, and reports say the Israeli government was blindsided by Washington’s proposals. CNBC was unable to verify this claim.

Iranian officials have signaled they are likely to reject the U.S. terms and have laid out their own list of conditions for ending the war, including Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz.

This may come as a surprise to the United States, as President Trump on Monday suggested the strait could be jointly managed by “me and the Ayatollah.” U.S. demands for limits on Iran’s missile program could also cross a red line for Tehran.

“How long the conflict lasts depends on how long it takes both sides to reach an agreement,” Cohen said.

The military reinforcements give President Trump more options, but analysts say they may not be enough against an adversary who has long been preparing for this fight.

Daniel Davis, a senior fellow and military expert at the policy think tank Defense Priorities, said actual U.S. ground combat power may be sufficient to capture small, poorly defended targets for short periods of time. But he said that’s not enough to sustain operations against a country that has spent years fortifying underground missile cities, distributing forces and preparing for this very scenario.

“I think the odds of it being successful are very low and the odds of casualties are very high,” Davis told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” on Thursday. Davis retired from the U.S. Army after 21 years of active duty.

Deploying elite units like the 82nd Airborne Division may provide a rapid ground response capability, but is not sustainable without a subsequent large-scale military commitment, Davis said.

U.S. military plans for Iran to date also reflect some miscalculations on President Trump’s part, veterans say.

Davis said that while the successful operation to capture former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January may have given the regime confidence, Iran’s geography, military capabilities and strategic depth bear little resemblance to the Caracas attack.

Unlike Venezuela, Iran is a “well-capable of counterattack” adversary, with well-trained proxies across the region and control of chokepoints through which about a fifth of the world’s oil flows, Davis said. “This is a much more difficult task than in Venezuela,” he added.

But even if the Iran war is successfully resolved, it could leave lasting scars on the global economy and geopolitical landscape, said Ben Emmons, founder of investment management firm FedWatch Advisors.

The ripple effects from the disruption to LNG, helium, sulfur and fertilizer supply chains could last up to 18 months, Emmons told CNBC in an email. Emmons said food inflation is likely to remain high and will have political implications for several countries, including the United States.

Emmons said the already deficit oil supply shock could continue into the second half of this year if the Strait of Hormuz resumes operations at pre-war levels.

There was little visibility into whether or when talks between the United States and Iran would begin, and the path to a ceasefire appeared extremely uncertain.

“It is likely that there will be some kind of suspension in the coming weeks (but) the question is what happens after the suspension,” Azizi said. “A change in power in Iran could lead to a permanent agreement, or at least a permanent non-belligerency. It could also lead to a further process of attrition and a new ‘forever war,'” he said.