How Did Operation Epic Fury Turn Into an Epic Disaster?

A recent article by journalist Robin Wright in The New Yorker argues that US President Donald Trump claims an agreement to end the war with Iran is close at hand. Yet on the core issues that triggered the conflict, the situation appears to have returned to square one, or perhaps something even worse.

In September 2015, Trump, then a businessman and presidential candidate with little foreign policy experience, criticised the original nuclear agreement reached between Iran and six world powers, calling it “one of the worst deals ever made.”

“The United States lost at almost every point,” Trump wrote at the time. “We don’t win anymore.”

It is difficult not to recall that criticism today as Trump seeks to secure his own agreement to end what Wright describes as a poorly planned, poorly prepared and badly timed war with Iran.

A Costly War for Limited Gains

During the Obama administration, Washington achieved significant restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme without resorting to war, although the diplomatic process required two years of difficult negotiations.

Trump’s war has reportedly cost at least $28 billion, the lives of 13 Americans, thousands of Iranian casualties, severe disruption to the Strait of Hormuz, interruptions to global energy supplies, and economic turmoil affecting hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

It may also have inflicted lasting damage on America’s international standing.

Despite these costs, Trump may end up securing little more than what was already achieved under the original nuclear agreement, which he unilaterally abandoned in 2018 after describing it as “horrible.”

Negotiations Return to the Forefront

Over the weekend, the United States and Iran announced that they had entered the final stages of negotiating a memorandum of understanding, viewed as the first step towards ending the conflict.

The framework is expected to contain few details on how the most complex disputes will be resolved.

Iran appears to be pursuing a long term strategy despite suffering major losses, including the assassination of its Supreme Leader, senior political and military officials, and extensive damage to infrastructure.

Trump, meanwhile, is pursuing a shorter term approach as midterm elections approach and public dissatisfaction with the war grows.

For him, what was branded as “Operation Epic Fury” is increasingly being portrayed as an epic disaster.

Ceasefire Extension and Nuclear Concessions

Reports indicate that the proposed terms include extending the current ceasefire for between 30 and 60 days and ending reciprocal restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz.

Around 2,000 vessels carrying billions of dollars in assets and approximately 20,000 sailors have reportedly remained stranded in the Gulf for months.

The agreement would also allow the resumption of transit for roughly one fifth of the world’s oil and gas supplies.

Iran would commit to future restrictions on its controversial nuclear programme, while the United States would ease some sanctions and release a portion of frozen Iranian assets.

However, even the sequencing of these steps remains disputed.

Which side moves first, at what pace, under what conditions, and in exchange for what concessions remain unresolved questions.

The White House has reportedly adopted a “No Dust, No Dollars” policy, meaning Iran would first have to surrender roughly 1,000 pounds of enriched uranium before sanctions relief could begin.

Diplomacy Abandoned Before the War

According to the article, these nuclear concessions were already available in February, before the war began, while negotiations between Washington and Tehran were still underway.

On the eve of a scheduled meeting in Geneva, the United States abandoned diplomacy and joined Israel in launching a full scale war.

Ali Vaez, Director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, described the outcome as deeply ironic.

“The great irony is that we fought this enormously costly conflict only to end up with a one page document lacking any technical detail,” he said.

“A lot of these points make no sense at all.”

Vaez added that while he has always supported non aggression agreements, such commitments are meaningless if they cannot be verified or enforced.

“Much of this is simply superficial language, and it is unfortunate that we went through all of this only to arrive at this stage.”

Lessons From North Korea and Gaza

Vaez compared the memorandum with the agreement brokered by Trump to end the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas.

That agreement entered into force in October but never progressed beyond its initial stage.

The Israeli occupation state continues its military campaign in Gaza, while Hamas, which refuses disarmament, still maintains control over approximately 40 per cent of the territory.

The article argues that Trump has a history of celebrating diplomatic achievements, claiming they deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, only to later lose interest, delegate responsibility, or distance himself from the difficult work of implementation.

A similar pattern emerged during Trump’s first term.

In 2018, he held a summit in Singapore with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, later declaring that the North Korean threat had ended and praising his “very special relationship” with the country’s leader.

Kim pledged a firm commitment to complete denuclearisation and agreed to return the remains of approximately 5,000 missing Americans from the Korean War.

The summit produced a 400 word document but delivered few tangible results.

In June 2019, Trump became the first sitting US president to enter North Korea when he crossed the border from South Korea to meet Kim in a highly publicised diplomatic gesture.

That initiative also collapsed.

Since then, estimates suggest Pyongyang has produced an additional 20 nuclear warheads and returned only 55 boxes of human remains.

Today, North Korea’s military threat exceeds Iran’s in several respects.

Unresolved Regional Threats

Speaking on Monday, former US ambassador and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Barbara Leaf argued that the agreements reached with Iran have failed to address many of the original justifications Trump cited for launching the war.

There is no reference to Iran’s large stockpile of drones and ballistic missiles, despite reports that Tehran rebuilt missile production facilities during the ceasefire period.

These weapons pose a more immediate threat to the region than a nuclear programme, as demonstrated by thousands of Iranian strikes against Gulf states.

Reports indicate Iran still retains 70 per cent of its pre war missile arsenal.

Leaf also noted the absence of any commitment requiring Iran to end support for its regional allies.

Instead, Iran reportedly demanded that any agreement include a parallel end to Israel’s war against Hezbollah.

Israel has declared its intention to occupy 10 per cent of Lebanese territory, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to continue military operations until Hezbollah can no longer pose a threat, echoing similar promises made regarding Hamas in Gaza.

Regime Change Claims Under Scrutiny

Two weeks before the war, Trump told journalists that regime change in Iran “would be the best thing that could happen.”

By March, he claimed successive layers of Iran’s leadership had been destroyed and that a fundamentally different group now governed the country.

However, according to Leaf, the current government in Tehran is more hardline than its predecessor.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps now wields considerable influence, including over the negotiations.

The nuclear programme remains under its control, while chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf is a former Revolutionary Guard commander who currently serves as Speaker of Parliament.

Leaf argued that Trump underestimated the resilience of the Iranian system.

Rather than weakening it, the war appears to have strengthened internal cohesion.

The Deterrence Question

After surviving extensive American and Israeli air strikes, Iran appears increasingly confident in its ability to endure future confrontations, albeit at a significant cost.

Former Israeli military intelligence specialist Dani Citrinowicz warned on X that one of the most dangerous consequences of the campaign may be the erosion of deterrence against Iran.

He argued that a major factor preventing Tehran from openly pursuing nuclear weapons was the fear that doing so would trigger a large scale military campaign threatening not only Iran’s capabilities but the survival of the political system itself.

From Tehran’s perspective, that confrontation has now occurred, and Iran survived.

As a result, both Washington and Israel have gained a clearer understanding of the limits of military pressure against Iran.

Iran’s Growing Leverage in Hormuz

The conflict also highlighted Iran’s ability to exert unprecedented influence over the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranian leaders now understand they can repeatedly disrupt one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints at enormous cost to the United States and the global economy.

Tehran has even proposed imposing fees on vessels passing through the waterway, which had previously remained open to free navigation.

On Monday, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson confirmed ongoing discussions with the Sultanate of Oman regarding a new protocol to provide environmental protection services in Hormuz waters.

“All of these measures require certain expenditures,” the spokesperson said.

Abraham Accords Proposal Meets Silence

Over the weekend, Trump unexpectedly expanded American objectives during a phone call with eight Middle Eastern leaders.

He urged them to normalise relations with Israel in exchange for his efforts to end the very war his administration had initiated.

Posting on Truth Social, Trump wrote:

“After all the efforts made by the United States to solve this complex dilemma, it should be mandatory that all these countries simultaneously sign the Abraham Accords at a minimum.”

He described the accords as a document that would command unparalleled respect and significance worldwide.

The Abraham Accords, introduced during Trump’s first term, were designed to encourage Arab states to recognise Israel.

Several countries have rejected the initiative pending the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Leaf said Trump’s proposal was met with complete silence.

“No one is willing,” she noted.

Former US ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro mocked the proposal, writing on X that diplomacy sometimes seeks to solve difficult problems by broadening the range of solutions and involving more stakeholders.

“The optimistic interpretation is that this is what he is trying to do,” Shapiro wrote.

“The realistic interpretation is that this solution is as imaginary as a moon made of green cheese.”

Critics Warn the War’s Gains Are Being Lost

Mark Dubowitz, Chief Executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and one of Washington’s most prominent Iran hawks, argued that the United States and Israel won the war.

However, he acknowledged that if the reported terms are accurate, Iran’s leadership is emerging as the true winner of the ceasefire.

“Another 60 day extension will only deepen Tehran’s advantage,” he wrote.

“Imagine achieving all of this on the battlefield only to surrender it at the negotiating table.”

Republican Senator Roger Wicker also warned that the agreement would be disastrous.

“Everything achieved through Operation Epic Fury will be wasted,” he said.

Fragile Ceasefire Raises New Concerns

The administration now appears to be on the defensive.

In the early hours of Tuesday morning, the United States launched an air strike in southern Iran near the Strait of Hormuz, underscoring both the fragility of the ceasefire and the weakness of ongoing diplomatic efforts.

In a statement marking the beginning of the annual Hajj season on Tuesday, Mojtaba Khamenei warned that Middle Eastern countries “will no longer serve as shields for American bases.”