Operation Epic Fury is challenging the established beliefs about foreign policy in Washington, D.C. The early stages of this operation reveal a striking disconnect between conventional wisdom and the unfolding realities on the battlefield. Four long-held assumptions surrounding U.S. and Israeli military action against Iran have proven to be fundamentally misguided.
First, the notion that Iran’s supreme leader was untouchable has been shattered. The operation began with the elimination of this leadership figure along with many of Iran’s senior officials. This decisive action was made possible by the leader’s own reckless decision to gather these officials in one place, making them particularly vulnerable.
In the wake of this strike, the remaining leaders attempted to organize a succession meeting, which itself became a target. These leaders now face a daunting challenge. They are struggling to regain command and control amid a landscape of demoralization and disrupted internal communications. The anticipated large-scale regional retaliation against Israel has not occurred. Instead, Iran’s misguided missile launches against neighboring countries, including mediators like Qatar and Oman, have led to a regional response uniting nations against Iran rather than Israel.
Reports indicate that even Arab states may consider joining the offensive against Iran. Despite tensions within the Abraham Accords following recent events, the agreements remain largely intact. This unity among Arab nations marks a significant shift in the region’s dynamics.
Iran’s loyal proxies, which were expected to respond aggressively, have remained largely inactive. Hamas in Gaza has not initiated any substantial attacks, and Hezbollah has only launched limited missile fire. Even the Houthis in Yemen, despite making threats, have refrained from open aggression. This suggests a reluctance to engage in a multi-front conflict against the formidable combined military capabilities of the U.S. and Israel.
Notably, while Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have issued strong statements condemning the U.S. actions, they have provided minimal support to Iran. Reports indicate that Iran has raised concerns about the effectiveness of the missile-defense systems supplied by these countries, revealing cracks in the supposed alliance.
As a result of these developments, America stands not isolated, but rather re-established as a prominent military power with enhanced credibility on the global stage. Even once-timid European allies have begun to express their support for the operation.
This conflict is undeniably serious, and it promises to bring challenges that will demand sacrifices in American lives and resources. However, it starkly contrasts the doom-and-gloom predictions from so-called experts over the past nearly five decades. While success is not guaranteed, this new reality presents both opportunities and risks, warranting a reevaluation of the constraints that have hampered U.S. actions against Iran for far too long.
President Trump has consistently defied the predictions that shaped Middle Eastern policy. The relocation of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was expected to provoke a major regional crisis. The assassination of Qasem Soleimani was thought to trigger wars across the region. Even the prospect of normalization between Israel and its neighbors was deemed impossible without first resolving the Palestinian situation. History is showing that these long-held beliefs need reconsideration.
Trump may also challenge the so-called “Pottery Barn Rule” regarding regime change, which asserts that a nation must be rebuilt after its government is overthrown. This approach has previously led to disastrous mission creep in Iraq and Afghanistan, where initial military successes devolved into prolonged efforts to rebuild nations that ultimately failed. Moving forward, the focus should not be on reassembling a broken system but rather on achieving specific military objectives before concluding operations.
The ultimate goal should be to allow the Iranian people to reclaim their government, seizing an unprecedented opportunity to free themselves from the burden of an oppressive regime. Iran is more than just a fragile vessel; it is a sovereign nation with a potential future. The aim is for the American populace to navigate the next fifty years without the looming threat of a nuclear-capable Islamic Republic. Ideally, this period would foster a future collaboration with a secure and prosperous Iran, always ready for the Iranian people to shape their destiny.
"*" indicates required fields
