Operation Epic Fury or Epic Fail? Two views on the U.S., Israel and Iran

Peter Doran: The peace president’s war

OPINION — President Trump entered his second term promising to measure America’s success not only by the battles we win but the ones we end. Operation Epic Fury has become the largest test of that vision. Trump’s critics call it a “war of choice.”

They are partly right. Trump has finally decided to end the 47-year war the Islamic Republic of Iran has waged against us, and do so on America’s terms.

When an enemy demands “Death to America,” we should believe them. Since 1979, that aim has been the organizing purpose of the clerical regime in Tehran, repeated at Friday prayers, celebrations, anniversaries and on official airwaves.

More than empty words, the Islamic Republic has continuously made good on this demand.

From Lebanon to the Persian Gulf, the regime has weaponized and exported terror to kill Americans. It plotted assassinations on U.S. soil. In Iraq and Afghanistan, it developed and deployed lethal, armor-piercing explosives that killed and maimed hundreds of soldiers. As its clerics impoverished their people, their ballistic missiles rained down on civilians and bases alike. By their admission to U.S. negotiators, they enriched enough uranium to construct 11 nuclear warheads.

This must never be allowed to happen, for our safety and the peace of the world.

Before pursuing war, Trump repeatedly offered Tehran peace. His offer was unbeatable. If the Islamic Republic forswore nuclear weapons and its ballistic missile program, America would provide guaranteed uranium for peaceful power.

No nation seeking to generate peaceful electricity for its people would reject such a gift. The Islamic Republic did just that. Operation Epic Fury is the just and necessary result.

“Turns out the regime that chanted ‘Death to America’ was gifted death from America,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth noted. It was a pithy phrase that captured a larger fact.

This is not a war of aggression, but one of necessity: to end the clerical regime’s unending war against us.

Importantly, America’s operational goals are clear, achievable, morally grounded, and conducted in coordination with its enduring ally: Israel.

The first goal? Dismantle the missile “sword.” The joint air campaign is systematically neutralizing the Iranian ballistic missile infrastructure that threatens Tel Aviv and, as Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have warned, could soon reach Western Europe and perhaps someday the American homeland.

Second, entomb the larger threat. By targeting Iran’s enriched material and nuclear weapons capabilities, Trump is enforcing his primary “red line:” no nuclear weapons for Tehran.

Third, decapitate the apparatus of terror. By eliminating Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the architects of his campaign that killed 30,000 Iranian protesters in January, this operation gives Iranian society the space it needs to seize its own destiny. Khamenei’s demise is the beginning, not the end, of that process.

“This will be, probably, your only chance for generations,” Trump declared to the Iranian people. “Take back your country. America is with you.”

If the U.S. and Israel succeed, and all indications suggest that they will, then we are witnessing the birth pangs of a more peaceful Middle East. The fact that Saudi Arabia and Gulf capitals are getting off the sidelines to side with the U.S. and Israel against Iranian aggression would have been unthinkable just one year ago.

This “bandwagon effect” is precisely what is needed to expand Trump’s Abraham Accords: a regional peace agreement based on shared interests and mutual security. Until then, let’s pray for our servicemen and women. Their courage and skill may finally secure the peace that “endless diplomacy” never could. 

That is how Donald Trump will be remembered as the “peace president.”

Peter Doran is an adjunct senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Please submit comments to these Point & Counterpoint opinions at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.

Damian Murphy and Andrew Miller: War with Iran means short- and long-term damage

OPINION — Few will mourn the demise of Iran’s supreme leader or other senior Iranian security officials who terrorized the Iranian people and destabilized countries across the region.

However, it is noteworthy that, save Israel, none of the countries in the region publicly supported military action against Iran. They understood that while Ayatollah Ali Khamenei deserved his fate, the cost of war could quickly exceed any potential returns.

In just the past 72 hours, those concerns have been vindicated. Ten countries have been subject to strikes targeting military and civilian infrastructure, putting militaries and civilian populations on edge. In the United Arab Emirates, three civilians have been killed and 58 injured amid a barrage of drones and missiles fired at Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Several major airports and hotels have all been damaged from Iranian strikes. If this tempo continues, it remains to be seen whether the UAE can maintain its defenses.

Elsewhere, Americans and other regional partners have felt the brunt of Iranian retaliation. Four U.S. soldiers were killed and several others injured in a missile strike Sunday. The following day, three U.S. F-15 fighter jets were lost in a friendly fire incident that will cost American taxpayers $117 million per plane. At least one Kuwaiti has been killed and 32 injured in missile strikes. 

Iran has also attacked a major gas plant in Qatar, the biggest oil refinery in Saudi

Arabia, residential towers in Bahrain, and a synagogue and apartment buildings in Israel.

The war has shaken the global market, with oil prices up.

With the ability of regional countries to export gas, oil or any other goods effectively frozen, their economies will hemorrhage revenues as long as the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz is impassable. In the short term, the region from Cyprus to Oman is not better off.

Unfortunately, it looks increasingly likely that this damage will persist into the future, making the region worse off in the long term. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar have expended enormous resources and political capital in making the case that their major cities are safe for tourism and capital investment. These countries, whose economic models are predicated on predictability and peace, must now contend with a renewed reputation of a Middle East plagued by instability and uncertainty. The longer the war continues, the harder it will be to shed long-

term reputation costs.

Qatar and Oman probably feel the most burned by the U.S., whose diplomatic efforts were ill-informed and uneven. Both countries tried to support the Trump administration’s diplomatic track and put their reputations on the line to secure a peaceful resolution to the nuclear dispute.

For their efforts, each was subject to a barrage of Iranian missiles and drones in the initial counterattack. Trust has been damaged significantly, and one has to wonder if they will respond as enthusiastically the next time the U.S. seeks their assistance.

The region cannot be evaluated without considering the Iranian people, who bravely and courageously stood up to the regime. Whatever the Trump administration’s intent, a durable democratic transition in Iran cannot have its basis in actions taken by external actors like Israel or the United States. Any Iranian leader seen as having been installed by either country will soon suffer

from a lack of legitimacy with the Iranian people. 

Tragically, it is far from clear that President Trump is committed to supporting a democratic transition. The precedent set in Venezuela — where Trump jettisoned the opposition almost as soon as the helicopter carrying Nicolas Maduro left Venezuelan airspace — is a cautionary tale for Iranians.

Finally, this war may teach countries around the world a dangerous lesson. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, while imperfect, effectively kept Iran’s nuclear program in a box.

Iran accepted stringent and closely monitored restrictions on its nuclear program in exchange for economic relief, trusting that a diplomatic agreement would provide greater security than a nuclear weapon. All without a single shot fired. And then Trump shredded the agreement and set in motion a policy culminating in two military interventions.

What conclusion may countries draw from this episode? Perhaps, developing nuclear weapons is essential for maintaining power. Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi and now Ali Khamenei cast a long shadow that other authoritarian leaders are unlikely to ignore. If, after all this, the incentives for nuclear proliferation increase, no one in the region — whether Israelis, Saudis, Iranians or Americans — will claim to be better off.

Damian Murphy is senior vice president of National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress, and Andrew Miller is a senior fellow in the department focused on the Middle East. They wrote this for InsideSources.com.