The strategy behind Operation “Epic Fury” is failing. Why exiting the war remains so difficult—and how the conflict has already caused irreversible damage.
The war with Iran has been going on for over three weeks and there is plenty of confusion concerning its objectives and the benchmarks to define victory by the US and Israel. After initial demands for unconditional surrender, recent declarations by President Trump have opened a door to negotiations. Mohamend Bagher Qhalibaf, himself a senior commander of the Pasdaran and a political insider, has been rumoured to be the leading negotiator of Iran in a new round with Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, taking place in Karachi. The ultimatum for Tehran to allow traffic in the Strait of Hormuz has been put on hold for five days, allowing some direct high-level contacts. Financial markets have reacted to Trump´s statements with euphoria, with stocks rising and the price of oil and gas temporarily plummeting. Iranian officials have denied holding negotiations and accused Trump of spreading misinformation to manipulate the markets. It remains to be seen if this diplomatic overture will lead to an end of the conflict, but it is clear that the US President holds the key to this brave new world, whose rules are yet to be written.
The elimination of the leadership of the Islamic Republic by Israel has continued unabated with the killings of the Head of the Security Council, Ali Larijani, the Minister of Intelligence, Ismail Kattib, and other relevant figures in the security and political apparatus. But that has not triggered the implosion of the regime; rather, it has produced the opposite political effect. The transition toward a military dictatorship dominated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—has accelerated, as both the unpopular clerical establishment and the republican and political sectors of the system have been weakened. This new leadership appears determined to fight to the end, a scenario for which President Trump does not seem prepared and from which the world economy may struggle to recover.
This war poses some unprecedented questions regarding its objectives and strategy, with obvious discrepancies between Washington´s endgame and Israel´s. The Iranian response has been predictable, following the declared strategic goals that Tehran had openly communicated to friends and foes in the past: mutually assured destruction on a regional scale. It is less clear what President Trump hopes to achieve in order to declare victory and to which extent Netanyahu is dragging the US into another forever war. The rest of the Western world is watching in disbelief and holding its breath, powerless to influence the course of events, but scared of footing the bill.
It remains to be seen if Mohamed Bagher Qalibaf will have the backing of the IRGC in negotiating a credible deal
The selection of Mojtaba Khamenei as Supreme Leader is evidence that Iran is not any more a theocracy, balanced by a republican civilian political structure and a military revolutionary arm, but is rather shifting into a military dictatorship. Although he is a cleric, he lacks the religious credentials required for such a position, and his appointment appears to have been imposed by the Revolutionary Guard against strong resistance by the more pragmatic leadership, headed by Ali Larijani himself. This dynastic choice contradicts Ali Khamenei´s own will, the principles of the Islamic Revolution and the Shiite tradition based on the system of marjaʿiyya—the sources of emulation—which requires the support of the largest possible number of followers.
The key for the Islamic Republic of Iran to endure 47 years of sanctions and all sorts of internal and external crises has been the hybrid nature of the political system at its core, generally able to accommodate the differences within the competing factions. The systematic assassination of the Iranian leadership by Israel is a game changer not only by the nature of the strategy itself but also by the indiscriminate scope of it. The unwritten laws of modern warfare, very different from those laid down after World War II, have been changing silently in tune with the technological revolution of recent years, moving away from legal precedents.
Nearly anybody with authority or revolutionary credentials has been taken out of the game by now, making a negotiated outcome more difficult. The elimination of Ali Larijani is a clear sign that Israel wants to leave the US President with no options for negotiations, and Trump himself acknowledged that most of those the US was considering as possible interlocutors are dead. The republican sector, often referred to as the “reformist” faction and traditionally supportive of negotiations with the United States, has been completely discredited by what it is perceived as repeated betrayals by its Western interlocutors, for which the Biden administration also bears significant responsibility.
We may therefore conclude that Iran is entering a new phase of “revolution within the revolution,” characterized by the total concentration of power in the hands of a younger generation of Revolutionary Guards. The selection of Mojtaba Khamenei is a clear indicator those radical elements in the IRGC do not trust the resolve of the traditional clerical establishment. The new Supreme Leader has not appeared in public since his appointment, giving rise to all sorts of speculations regarding his condition and it remains to be seen if Mohamed Bagher Qalibaf will have the backing of the IRGC in negotiating a credible deal. Benjamin Netanyahu has already declared that regime change requires boots on the ground and is trying to push President Trump deeper into the conflict. The resignation of Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, has brought into the open the intense debate within the US leadership on the way ahead.
The next phase of the conflict could be fought in Iraq and Yemen, increasing exponentially the geopolitical risks of a protracted regional conflict
Military operations have undoubtedly achieved considerable success, destroying a large portion of Iran’s military infrastructure, but that may prove the easy part. Since the first days of the war, Iran’s long-range missile launch capability has reportedly been reduced by 90 percent, and the industrial capacity related to missile production is being systematically dismantled. However, this does not mean that Iran has run out of strategic options. Instead, it has redirected its attacks toward its Gulf neighbours, which are far more vulnerable, as well as toward maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s strategy appears to rely on a form of strategic deterrence analogous to the logic of mutually assured destruction, aimed at forcing a negotiated outcome that guarantees the survival of the regime. The determination to resist at all costs is evident, and it seems unlikely that a popular uprising or an internal military coup will emerge in the near future to alter this course.
Moreover, proposals to exploit ethnic minorities in order to destabilize the regime have had the opposite effect, provoking a nationalist reaction. The escalation targeting energy facilities in the region both by Israel and Iran have doubled the stakes and, sending gas and oil prices skyrocketing worldwide, causing financial markets to panic. The question of how long Iran will have the capacity to escalate, attacking the energy facilities of its Gulf neighbours and keep the Strait of Hormuz closed, will define the result of the war. Thousands of Shahed drones, short-distance missiles and fast torpedo boats can sow chaos in the Gulf for months, outlasting the capacity of financial markets to absorb the shock.
What we are witnessing is therefore a war of endurance in which President Trump finds himself trapped by his own strategy of seeking a rapid and decisive victory. His options appear limited, with a deeper military commitment involving the deployment of ground troops now on the table, something for which no clear preparation has been made. Ground operations in the Strait of Hormuz, Kharq Island or the nuclear facilities in Fordow, or Natanz carry enormous risks and offer uncertain results for US troops. Moreover, it is Israel that is several moves ahead of the US in defining the next military decision, making a zero-sum game inevitable.
For Iran, the strategy is simpler: to endure and impose such high economic and geopolitical costs that Washington will eventually be compelled to accept terms in order to avoid a global financial crisis. Israel may succeed in eliminating its last major regional military rival, but at a cost that could transform the outcome into a Pyrrhic victory and plant the seed of a prolonged and permanent conflict. While the prospect of a civil war in Iran remains unlikely at present, it cannot be entirely ruled out if the conflict expands into a long and bloody regional war. The next phase of the conflict could be fought in Iraq and Yemen, increasing exponentially the geopolitical risks of a protracted regional conflict.
Donald Trump’s Operation “Epic Fury” could ultimately resemble the outcome of the war in Afghanistan
Iran would only set Iraq on fire as a measure of last resort, but that point is drawing closer every day. The delicate political balance in Iraq holds the stability of the whole region hanging by a thread, with both the KRG in Erbil and the Shia institutions trying to avoid the spillover of the war. The highest Shia religious authority in Iraq, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, on Saturday issued a strong statement in support of Iran and Lebanon, condemning the war and urging international powers to put an end to it. It remains to be seen if that thread will hold much longer. The next worrying scenario would be the Houthis in Yemen entering the fray and choking the Bab el Mandab in coordination with the Iranian blockade of Hormuz. The Houthis are known to pursue their own independent political agenda, but their recent track record of making themselves a reputation by attacking Israel would point in that direction.
Iran could keep destabilizing the Persian Gulf for months, generating an economic and political shock of global repercussions. The Shia militias allied to Tehran and the Houthi forces in Yemen remain powerful actors that could eventually multiply exponentially the geopolitical risk of a regional war. Russia and China have not yet intervened directly in the conflict, but as the war continues, they will inevitably become involved in one way or another, as their strategic interests are at stake.
Donald Trump’s Operation “Epic Fury” could ultimately resemble the outcome of the war in Afghanistan, which ended by replacing the Taliban with the Taliban, albeit with far more catastrophic geopolitical implications. Even if the current negotiations bring an end to the war, it is unclear what kind of security system will maintain stability in the region. Trust has been shattered among most of the regional players and no guarantees can replace that. Some analysts have also speculated that the new Iranian leaders could take the decision to accelerate a secret military nuclear program as the only credible deterrence, considering Ali Khamenei´s fatwa not valid after his death.
What already appears evident is that the Middle East is entering a period of instability with unpredictable consequences, and the global economy may still pay a heavy price. Iran announced that it will continue its operations in the Strait of Hormuz, and oil prices could rise to 200 USD per barrel, potentially destroying the regional economy and triggering a worldwide economic crisis. The key variable will be if Iran can sustain this challenge, but it is far from improbable that the conflict could last several months in the worst-case scenario, making the world’s financial markets the next battlefield.
Ramon Blecua is a Spanish diplomat, former EU Ambassador to Iraq and former Ambassador at large for Mediation and Intercultural Dialogue. The opinions in this article are his own.
