On October 16, 2026, senior US Army Special Operations commanders discussed how their forces are adapting to large-scale warfare. Their remarks raise an important question about US Special Forces in Iran: could unconventional warfare achieve strategic results that conventional military attacks cannot?
American and Israeli strikes have severely damaged Iranian military infrastructure, yet weakening a country’s military capabilities does not necessarily weaken its government’s political control. Special Forces are trained for missions that extend beyond direct combat, including intelligence gathering, unconventional warfare, and cooperation with local partners.
Their specific activities inside Iran remain largely undisclosed. But as the conflict continues, understanding what Special Forces could accomplish—and where their limitations lie—has become increasingly relevant.
Sources:
Matt White, Task & Purpose: What Would Special Operations Forces Do in a Really Big War?
What Do We Know About US Special Forces in Iran?
No specific US Special Forces missions inside Iran have been publicly confirmed, although American military leaders have acknowledged the broader involvement of Special Operations Forces in recent military campaigns.
Speaking at an Army conference in October 2026, Lieutenant General Lawrence Ferguson and Brigadier General Joseph Wortham discussed how Special Operations units are adapting to large-scale warfare. Wortham declined to provide details about their role in the conflict, leaving questions about US Special Forces in Iran and the nature of any involvement unanswered.
An important distinction is often overlooked. Special Operations Forces is a broad term covering specialized military units, including Army Rangers, psychological operations personnel, and the Green Berets. The latter are specifically designated US Army Special Forces, trained in unconventional warfare and working with foreign partners.
Meanwhile, the broader US military campaign against Iran has included strikes on missile facilities, air defenses, and military command structures. Congressional reporting documents these operations, but does not establish that Green Berets are conducting missions inside Iranian territory.
Secrecy is a normal part of Special Operations. However, a lack of public information should never be mistaken for evidence that a particular operation has taken place.
Sources:
Congressional Research Service: U.S. Military Operations Against Iran’s Missile and Nuclear Programs
U.S. Special Operations Command: About USSOCOM — Core Activities
Why Is the US Military Rethinking Special Operations Warfare?
The US military is adapting Special Operations Forces for conflicts against technologically advanced adversaries, where intelligence, unconventional warfare, and cooperation with conventional forces may prove as important as direct combat.
For two decades, American Special Operations largely focused on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Today, military planners are preparing for conflicts involving sophisticated air defenses, electronic warfare, surveillance systems, and large conventional forces, raising new questions about the potential role of US Special Forces in Iran.
This shift changes how small, specialized teams operate. Rather than concentrating primarily on raids and targeted missions, Special Operations personnel may support broader campaigns through reconnaissance, psychological operations, regional expertise, and cooperation with allied forces.
Technology is also reshaping their capabilities. Small drones can extend reconnaissance beyond a team’s immediate surroundings, while unmanned systems create new opportunities for intelligence gathering and operations in contested environments.
Iran illustrates why this evolution matters. Its dispersed military infrastructure, extensive security apparatus, and reliance on missiles and drones present challenges that conventional firepower alone cannot fully address. Modern Special Operations strategy increasingly emphasizes understanding and influencing the wider operational environment, not simply destroying military targets.
Sources:
U.S. Army, Military Review: Unmanned Systems and Army Special Forces — May–June 2026
U.S. Department of Defense: 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America
Could Unconventional Warfare Challenge Iran's Military Power?
Unconventional warfare could challenge Iran’s security structures by targeting the political and institutional foundations of their power rather than relying exclusively on military force. However, its effectiveness would depend on local support, political objectives, and the ability of resistance movements to operate under intense repression.
Unlike conventional warfare, which focuses primarily on defeating enemy forces and destroying military capabilities, unconventional warfare can involve supporting resistance movements, disrupting established power structures, and weakening an adversary’s control over territory or institutions.
In Iran, that distinction matters. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) plays a central role in protecting the regime, while the Basij, operating under IRGC authority, helps enforce internal security and suppress dissent. Together with other security and intelligence organizations, they form an extensive system of political control.
Destroying military installations does not automatically dismantle these networks. Their influence depends on institutional loyalty, intelligence gathering, and the ability to intimidate or punish opposition.
Foreign involvement also carries risks. If Iranian resistance movements become associated with outside military powers, the government could exploit that connection to discredit domestic opposition and justify further repression. For US Special Forces in Iran, unconventional warfare could therefore present strategic possibilities, but no guarantee of political change.
Sources:
U.S. Army: Understanding Irregular Warfare — 2025
Council on Foreign Relations: Iran’s Revolutionary Guards
Why Does Iranian Resistance Matter to Special Forces Strategy?
Iranian resistance matters to Special Forces strategy because unconventional warfare depends on the willingness, trust, and participation of local populations. Foreign military capabilities may weaken a government, but they cannot automatically create a unified opposition capable of replacing it.
Iran’s resistance is far from a single movement. Protesters, labor activists, ethnic minority groups, and political organizations have different priorities and visions for the country’s future. While many oppose the Islamic Republic, opposition to the same government does not necessarily translate into agreement about what should replace it.
Repression makes cooperation even more difficult. Surveillance, arrests, and infiltration create serious risks for anyone attempting to organize resistance. Trust becomes essential, particularly when contact with foreign governments could expose individuals to accusations of espionage or collaboration.
For Special Forces, understanding these relationships is fundamental to unconventional warfare. Military training and equipment cannot substitute for local legitimacy or shared political objectives.
The central challenge for any potential involvement of US Special Forces in Iran is whether outside military support would strengthen Iranian resistance or undermine the very credibility it needs to succeed.
Sources:
Dr. Daniel W. Ross, U.S. Army — The Warrant Officer Journal: The Importance of Emotional Intelligence for Special Forces Warrant Officers during Unconventional Warfare Operations
John Irish, Reuters: Iran Protests Show Bitter Schism Among Exiled Opposition Factions — January 15, 2026
What Does Ricardo's Journey in Shadows of Tehran Reveal About Unconventional Warfare?
Ricardo’s journey in Shadows of Tehran reveals why understanding the people living under political repression matters as much as understanding the military forces controlling them. His experiences connect two very different perspectives: resisting an authoritarian government and later serving in American Special Forces.
Growing up during Iran’s 1979 Revolution, Ricardo becomes involved in resistance against the emerging Islamic Republic while still a teenager. His decisions are shaped by personal danger, divided loyalties, and the consequences of refusing to submit. Resistance is not a military assignment for him. It is a response to what is happening to his country and his future.
After escaping Iran, Ricardo eventually joins American Special Forces. His military career later brings him back to the country he fled, confronting him with the relationship between military objectives and the people affected by them.
Author Nick Berg draws on his own experiences growing up in Iran and later serving in US Special Operations to create Ricardo’s fictional journey.
That connection is particularly relevant to the debate surrounding US Special Forces in Iran in 2026.Unconventional warfare may involve supporting local resistance, but military expertise alone cannot determine what a population wants or what risks people are willing to accept.
Ricardo’s story illustrates why those distinctions matter. Understanding a conflict requires more than identifying an enemy; it requires understanding the people whose lives and futures are at stake.
Sources:
Anna Simons, Naval Postgraduate School: The Company They Keep: Life Inside the U.S. Army Special Forces
Can US Special Forces in Iran Achieve What Airstrikes Cannot?
US Special Forces possess capabilities that airstrikes cannot replace, but whether those capabilities could bring meaningful political change to Iran remains uncertain. Military force can damage a regime’s defenses and infrastructure without necessarily weakening its control over society.
Unconventional warfare offers a different approach, one that depends on local relationships, intelligence, and political conditions rather than military superiority alone. Yet even successful Special Operations cannot guarantee that a population is prepared or able to shape what follows.
Ricardo’s journey in Shadows of Tehran brings that distinction into focus. Having experienced repression before becoming an American Special Forces soldier, he represents both sides of a struggle that military strategy alone cannot resolve.
Ultimately, the question is not simply what American forces could accomplish inside Iran, but whether their involvement could help create conditions in which Iranians can determine their own future.
