It's a special kind of madness to make long-term predictions in the fog of war. No one knows how Operation Epic Fury will end. But there are already some things that we can celebrate and condemn.
On the celebration side: The professionalism and bravery of the US military stands out. The same goes for the just disappearance of Ayatollah Khamenei, amidst dozens of his murderous henchmen. Other things worth celebrating are mere possibilities at this point. If nearly half a century of Iranian repression at home and terrorism abroad is about to end, along with Iran's nuclear ambitions, that would be cause for monumental celebration. And whether you celebrate it or not, it would be a huge addition to Donald Trump's presidential legacy.
On the other hand: this is no way for a constitutional republic to go to war. The ever-changing rationale, failure to consult Congress, and Congress's refusal to require consultation and authorization are an outrage, no matter how this war ends. If the war and its consequences are deemed successful, there will still be a price to pay, as our system of checks and balances will appear to future presidents to be even more of a dead letter. Conversely, if this ends in disaster, we could see a renewed effort to restore that system to avoid similar calamities in the future.
Everything that happens inside and outside Iran depends on the consequences, intended or unintended, of one man's unilateral decision to launch a war. In short, we are all under surveillance.
Those who oppose the overthrow of mulacracy have relied solely on the specter of regression. This is the always reasonable concern that the unintended consequences of an action will be worse than taking no action at all. The term originated in the CIA of the 1950s, but the idea dates back at least to Thucydides. As former CIA analyst Chalmers Johnson wrote in his 2000 book “Blowback”: “Not even an empire can control the long-term effects of its policies. That is the essence of blowback.”
Cultivating fear of consequences has been the organizing principle of Iranian national security for decades. He built an “Axis of Resistance” (Hezbollah, Hamas, a docile vassal regime in Syria, etc.) so that the price of attacking Iran would be too high to contemplate. That was the main reason for the Iranian nuclear program.
What the ayatollahs and their political and intellectual praetorians in the West failed to appreciate is that the concept of rollback is not just a check on American or Western power. It is a universal phenomenon (only ask Russian President Vladimir Putin).
Consider that Operation Epic Fury is largely the direct consequence of the heinous attacks of October 7, 2023 led by Iran's proxy, Hamas. The October 7 setback led to the pulverization of not only Hamas, but also Hezbollah, and indirectly to the fall of the Assad regime in Syria. It also led to the degradation of Iran's own defenses to the point where Operation Epic Fury became feasible.
It remains to be seen whether the operation will be successful. Regime change from the air is difficult. Regime change from the air that does not lead to chaos on the ground (as happened in Libya in 2011) is much more difficult.
The possibility of all this going wrong is not a particularly clever or novel idea. These kinds of warnings, largely from Trump's critics, are a staple of every op-ed page and cable news debate.
What has been less discussed is whether Trump subscribes to the backsliding theory. It's easy to miss when the bombs drop, but Trump's entire approach to military action is to seek quick “victories” with few lasting entanglements. That is why we already talk about “exit ramps”and restarting talks with Iran (it's also partly why he didn't actually change the regime in Venezuela. He just replaced an incalcitrant autocratic bully with a docile one).
At this point, it is reasonable to worry about the consequences of unilaterally launching a war against Iran. But if things get too complicated for him, specifically if Iran's strategy of shaking up the entire region, disrupting the flow of oil and spooking financial markets, is successful, the debate could suddenly shift. Instead of accusing him that he was too reckless in taking bold steps, criticism could focus on how he repented before finishing the job, leaving the entire region in confusion.
Trump may seem like a hypocrite to many detractors for violating countless promises to end the “forever wars,” but a forever war is still the last thing he really wants. That doesn't mean you won't get one. Because Trump cannot control the long-term effects of his policies.
UNKNOWN: @JonahDispatch
Perspectives
Perspectives from the LA Times offers AI-generated analysis of Voices content to provide all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news articles.
point of view
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. Content is not created or edited by the Los Angeles Times editorial staff.
Ideas expressed in the piece.
-
The military professionalism and courage demonstrated by U.S. forces deserves celebration, as does the death of Ayatollah Khamenei and associated regime leaders, with the potential elimination of Iran's nuclear ambitions and decades of regional terrorism representing a significant addition to Trump's presidential legacy.
-
The decision to launch military operations represents a departure from constitutional procedures, and the lack of congressional consultation and authorization constitutes an outrage that will have lasting institutional consequences regardless of whether the operation succeeds or fails. If they succeed, future presidents will find checks and balances even more weakened; If unsuccessful, efforts to restore constitutional restrictions may be intensified.
-
Backlash – the concept that the unintended consequences of military action can be worse than inaction – represents a legitimate concern that applies universally and not exclusively to American power. The operation itself resulted in part from the fallout from the Hamas attacks in October 2023, demonstrating how the fallout multiplies unpredictably across regions and actors.
-
Trump's approach prioritizes quick military “victories” with minimal, long-lasting entanglements, and the administration is already discussing “exit ramps” and a possible restart of negotiations. This preference for quick conclusions rather than extended commitments distinguishes the administration's strategy, although it carries risks of appearing too aggressive at the beginning or insufficiently committed later.
-
Criticism of the operation could move from accusations of recklessness to accusations of abandoning the effort prematurely if regional instability worsens, oil supplies face disruptions or financial markets destabilize. Ultimately, Trump cannot control the long-term effects of military policies, regardless of initial intentions.
Different points of view on the subject.
-
Public support for Operation Epic Fury remains uncertain and limited, with polls showing that Americans are either sharply divided or favoring skepticism toward the operation. A YouGov poll found that 45 percent believed Trump made the wrong decision compared to 31 percent who supported the action, while a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed just 27 percent approved of the operations versus 43 percent who disapproved, and 56 percent agreed that Trump is too willing to use military force.[2]. About 25 percent of Americans remain undecided and only 18 percent favor continuing operations regardless of gas price impacts.[2]suggesting limited public appetite for prolonged engagement.
-
Despite military attacks, significant risks of nuclear proliferation remain. Operation Epic Fury may have reduced proliferation threats in the short term, but it introduces new risks, including uncertainty over the location of Iran's stockpile of 400 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium and the possibility that scattered nuclear and missile scientists pose proliferation dangers to non-state actors or foreign nations if Iranian institutions collapse.[1]. Any attack on the Bushehr reactor could create radiological and diplomatic risks even though Russian personnel remain on site.[1].
-
The conflict demonstrates potential for escalation beyond initial military objectives. Iranian retaliation dubbed Operation True Promise 4 has already targeted US military installations across the Middle East, and both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have indicated their willingness to respond directly rather than simply intercept Iranian salvos.[1]. Future Iranian responses will likely include cyber operations and terrorist attacks, as Iranian Internet connectivity has already decreased by 46 percent, suggesting that large-scale cyber operations are underway.[1]. The systematic nature of the current attacks makes the de-escalation options that characterized previous military exchanges between the United States and Iran increasingly difficult to imagine.[1].
-
Regime change through airstrikes without subsequent ground operations carries substantial risks of prolonged instability comparable to the 2011 Libya intervention, where air operations failed to prevent regional chaos and long-lasting conflict.
