Trump leaning toward ground invasion in Iran - Times of Israel

Israel’s military said on Thursday its air force carried out around 20 waves of strikes over the past 24 hours targeting Iranian military infrastructure in western Iran.

The military said the strikes hit dozens of sites including locations in Kermanshah and Dezful.

It said about 70 munitions were used to target facilities involved in the storage and launch of ballistic missiles as well as air defense systems.

Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said the country will continue fighting until it breaks what he described as the cycle of “war–ceasefire–war.”

In a post on his X account addressed to the “heroic nation of Iran,” Ghalibaf said public mobilization and the sacrifices of Iran’s armed forces over the past 25 nights had created conditions for what he called a “historic victory.”

“No one can issue ultimatums to Iran or the Iranian people,” he wrote.

Ghalibaf added that Iran’s forces would not lose the opportunity created by the war and would press on until “complete victory” and the end of the cycle of “war–ceasefire–war.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused US soldiers of fleeing military bases in Gulf Cooperation Council countries and taking shelter in civilian locations.

“From the outset of this war, U.S. soldiers fled military bases in GCC to hide in hotels and offices,” Araghchi wrote on X.

He alleged that the move amounts to using Gulf civilians as “human shields.”

“Hotels in the U.S. deny bookings to officers who may endanger customers,” he wrote. “GCC hotels should do the same.”

“We have very substantial talks going on with respect to Iran, with the right people,” Trump told reporters at a Cabinet meeting, signaling that diplomatic channels remain open despite the ongoing conflict.

The president pointed to what he described as a recent gesture involving oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz as evidence that the interlocutors involved in the discussions hold influence inside Iran’s leadership.

“They said, to show you that we’re real and solid and we’re there, we’re going to let you have eight boats,” Trump said, referring to oil tankers transiting the strategic waterway.

He added that the number later increased to 10 vessels, suggesting to him that those involved in the talks had the authority to deliver concrete steps.

Steve Witkoff, the US envoy involved in the diplomatic effort, said Washington has presented Iran with a 15-point framework for a potential peace agreement, describing it as the basis for ongoing discussions.

Witkoff said the proposal had been circulated through intermediaries and that talks were producing what he called “strong and positive messaging,” though he said the administration would keep the details confidential.

Iranian officials have confirmed that they have received proposals from the United States and said they are reviewing them, though they have not publicly described the terms or acknowledged direct negotiations.

The diplomatic signals come against the backdrop of continued military escalation. Friday will mark four weeks since the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran, after negotiations that Witkoff said on Thursday had been going nowhere.

It also marks the end of a five-day extension announced by Trump this week to his deadline for Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face airstrikes on Iranian power plants.

When asked whether the deadline remained in effect through Friday, Trump declined to give a clear answer.

Efforts to arrange another round of talks also appear uncertain.

Pakistan’s foreign minister said Thursday that expectations for negotiations in Islamabad this weekend may be premature, cooling speculation that the two sides could meet there in the coming days.

Pentagon officials have confirmed that additional troops are being moved into the Middle East, and Axios reported Thursday that Trump has been presented with military options that include strikes on Iranian targets and the potential seizure of strategic islands.

Trump did not rule out further escalation when asked about the possibility of taking control of Iranian oil resources, similar to what the United States attempted in Venezuela.

“That could be an option,” he said.

On March 24, reports indicated that Iran had suspended natural gas exports to Turkey following damage to facilities at the South Pars gas field after a March 18 strike. The disruption affects flows that accounted for roughly 14% of Turkey’s gas supply in 2025.

While Ankara’s response was swift and reassuring—with officials stressing that storage, diversification, and system flexibility prevented supply problems—the episode reveals a deeper issue on the Iranian side.

The halt is not simply a temporary interruption; it reflects structural constraints within Iran’s gas sector that limit its ability to sustain exports even to key regional partners.

A system under strain

The disruption originates from damage to South Pars, the world’s largest gas field and the backbone of Iran’s energy system. Because most of its output is consumed domestically, Iran operates with minimal export flexibility. Even limited disruptions can force immediate cuts to external deliveries.

Despite holding the world’s second-largest gas reserves, Iran has struggled to translate resource abundance into export capacity due to sanctions, underinvestment, and rising domestic demand.

As a result, exports to Turkey via the Tabriz–Ankara pipeline have often been inconsistent, with repeated disruptions over the past decade linked to technical issues and winter shortages.

In practice, Iran’s gas exports function less as a strategic tool than as a residual output constrained by domestic priorities.

Asymmetry

Energy relations between Iran and Turkey have long been framed as mutually beneficial: Iran gains export revenue while Turkey secures relatively affordable pipeline gas. In reality, the relationship is asymmetrical.

Iranian gas typically accounts for around 7–8 billion cubic meters annually. It is an important but non-dominant share of Turkey’s supply mix. Turkey’s broader portfolio, including Russia, Azerbaijan and LNG imports, limits dependence on any single supplier.

For Iran, by contrast, Turkey represents one of the few stable export outlets available under sanctions.

This imbalance becomes clear during disruptions. While Turkey can replace lost volumes through alternative sources, Iran cannot easily offset lost exports or the reputational damage that follows.

The timing is also significant. Turkey’s long-term gas contract with Iran is due to expire in mid-2026, and renegotiation was already expected to involve reduced volumes. Repeated supply interruptions are likely to strengthen Ankara’s bargaining position and further weaken Iran’s leverage.

Credibility and market impact

Turkey’s ability to absorb the disruption reflects years of diversification. The country consumes more than 50 bcm of gas annually and can draw on multiple pipeline suppliers as well as LNG imports.

Substitution, however, carries economic costs. Iranian pipeline gas has historically been cheaper than spot LNG, meaning replacement supplies raise import expenses.

Spot LNG prices in the Mediterranean have already risen amid broader geopolitical tensions, implying higher energy bills for Turkey if the disruption persists.

Yet these dynamics also underline Iran’s limited influence. Supply interruptions may impose short-term costs, but they do not create dependency. Instead, they highlight Turkey’s ability to adapt while reducing Iran’s strategic relevance over time.

In energy markets, credibility is as important as capacity. Repeated disruptions—whether caused by infrastructure damage, domestic shortages, or external shocks—undermine confidence in Iran as a dependable supplier.

Unlike major exporters such as Qatar or the United States, which maintain surplus capacity and flexible supply chains, Iran operates with structural constraints that limit responsiveness.

Turkey’s gas disruption therefore reveals more about Iran than about Turkey. Despite vast reserves, Iran lacks the infrastructure, investment and flexibility needed to turn those resources into consistent geopolitical influence.

Rather than demonstrating strength, the episode highlights constraint. Turkey’s ability to adapt reduces Iran’s leverage, while recurring supply interruptions erode its credibility as a regional energy partner.

In today’s energy landscape, influence depends not only on resources but on reliability—and that is where Iran continues to fall short.