Israel and the United States launched Operation Epic Fury, a joint-strike targeting Ayatollah Khamenei and his ruling regime in Iran on Feb. 28. However, it seems as though no one understands what this “operation” should be called. The messaging has ricocheted from certainty of not being a war to contradiction. Officials have been backtracking, redefining terms, and at times outright contradicting one another.
When these actions took place, President Trump posted on X, referring to this operation as “major combat operations.” But, as time has gone on, the message has shifted from a very focused and targeted military action into a mess of miscommunication. The others around him seem to have no clue either.
On March 5, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson stated, “We’re not at war, we have no intention at being at war. The president and the Department of Defense have made it very clear, this is a limited operation.” Two days before that, however, Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma), backtracked in a matter of minutes when he referred to this operation as a war. Saying “This is war” and then, when asked if he concedes that this is war, responds “We did not declare war.” Okay, so it is not a war.
Then, Secretary of War (formerly Secretary of Defense) Pete Hegseth went on 60 Minutes for an interview on March 8. When talking about this “conflict” and the risks of Iran not surrendering, Hegseth says, “This is war. This is conflict.” In this same interview, he’s quoted as saying that this is not a regime-change war. Hegseth doubles down but does not seem to answer what the goal truly is. He ridicules the Bush administration and its “foolishness” of Operation Iraqi Freedom but does not seem to have clear-cut answers on when or how this conflict will end. He hides behind the “we do not tell the press, media or anyone about our intentions.” So, what is the goal? It seems that unconditional surrender from Iran is the end-goal, but the plan following surrender does not exist or is not fully complete.
Following more strikes from the U.S., when asked on March 9 on how long this would take place, he answered, “The big risk on that war has been over for three days…The rest is going to be a determination as to my attitude, as well as the people in the Trump administration.” Ok, so now it is a war? Apparently not. A few days later, he’s questioned about his comment regarding this conflict as an excursion. Trump responds, “Well, it’s both. It’s an excursion that will keep us out of war. For them, it’s war. For us, it’s turned out to be easier than we thought.” Semantics can be an annoying angle to really focus on, but with major conflicts that kill hundreds, if not thousands, of people, messaging matters.
But what is this all truly about? The administration’s justification is that Iran’s nuclear program was an imminent threat. “If we didn’t hit within two weeks, they would’ve had a nuclear weapon. When crazy people have nuclear weapons, bad things happen,” says Trump. But how does this make sense? This is completely contradictory to the White House’s statement from June, when the US bombed Iran’s nuclear program; they released a report titled “Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News.” So, which is it? There’s no way Iran’s nuclear program gets “obliterated,” but then eight months later, they have the capacity to create a nuclear weapon.
Well, the people around Trump seemed to urge this threat, “Based on what Steve [Miller] and Jared [Kushner] and Pete [Hegseth]… told me, I thought Iran Would Attack Us,” Trump states. While giving a speech at the Congressional Institute, Trump exclaims, “Within a week, they were going to attack us. 100%. They were ready. They had all these missiles, far more than anyone thought.” What? Hegseth, in the same 60 Minutes interview, stated the U.S. has “the best intelligence unit in the world” and that they are the all-seeing eye, but they cannot have a good estimate of the missile capacity of Iran?
All these strikes have led to a confusing and volatile future for Iran and its leadership. Trump has stated he wants to play a role in the choice of Iran’s next leader, but that does not seem likely. When Ayatollah Khamenei was killed, Iran rushed to replace him with his son Mojtaba Khamenei. Trump showed his dislike for this, saying he is “not happy” with the choice. However, talks with Iranian officials are possible if the terms are right. The new Ayatollah’s first message is regarding the Strait of Hormuz, an essential waterway that houses the transportation of up to 20% of the world’s oil needs. Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, in his first public statement since being appointed, said that the Strait will be used as a “tool to pressure the enemy.” He also reinforced that Iran will keep attacking U.S. military bases in the Middle East until they are closed.
When all is said and done, there is one actor that is getting what they want: Israel. After over three decades of pleading with the U.S., negotiation, and conflict, the state can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel in the Middle East. The destabilization of Iran and the neighboring countries of Israel has been the top priority for the state, but more specifically, Benjamin Netanyahu. Contrary to what Secretary of Defense Hegseth said regarding this not being a regime-change war, their partner in crime, Prime Minister Netanyahu, hopes that this conflict leads to a heavily-diminished Iran that will almost certainly lead to a regime-change more in favor of allying with Israel and the U.S. The future of this conflict remains uncertain, but the hope is, of course, that this will not drag on. But history offers cautionary reminders.
“It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” —Donald Rumsfeld on the Iraq War on Feb. 7, 2003.
