President Trump’s decision to unleash Operation Epic Fury on February 28 was a bold and necessary act of deterrence against the world’s foremost promoter of terrorism.
The U.S. and Israel immediately decapitated the Iranian government with precision guided missiles in a dazzling operation, before obliterating what remained of Iran’s air defenses after last year’s attack on its nuclear facilities.
In the first 10 days, the Iranian Navy reportedly had been “annihilated” with 44 ships sunk. The Iranian Air Force was largely incapacitated or completely “wiped out” after intensive strikes on airbases.
U.S.- Israeli attacks decimated Iran’s military facilities, destroyed their capacity to build missiles and savaged the Revolutionary Guard’s bases and depots.
It provided hope to Iran’s beleaguered but once-prosperous citizens that better days may be ahead.
The effort highlighted military and intelligence brilliance and gutsy leadership from Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The six Gulf Arab states stood in solidarity against Iran after retaliatory attacks targeted them.
It comes with risks, but it also has the potential to reshape the Middle East for the better and lead to a safer world.
There were excellent reasons to take military action against Iran now.
The Tehran regime is weaker than it has been since it came to power in 1979. Israel has degraded its proxy armies. Iran is under extreme financial and economic pressure. It’s at war with its own people.
Despite all this, Trump must deal with two realities: No one knows how this will end and the war against the Iranian mullahs isn’t popular with the American people.
The action lacks domestic support. The RealClearPolitics average of national polls taken in the war’s first week found 43.1% approving of the military action while 49.2% disapproved. Trump spent almost no time explaining why war was needed.
Democrats, with a few brave exceptions, voiced instantaneous and intense hostility to the operation. Presented with a choice between party and country, most Democrats have chosen party.
A few Democrats, notably Pennsylvania’s Sen. John Fetterman, have supported the war effort.
But most, including the Congressional leadership, have opposed it and even seem to be hoping for failure.
They accuse the administration of proffering a variety of “rationales” for the action, with the implication that Trump acted in pursuit of some hidden goal. They ignore the possibility that he might have more than a single reason for attacking Iran.
The last time Congress formally declared war was in June 1942. Since then, presidents have often sought and received congressional authorization for the use of military force in response to specific threats.
Democrats insist Trump’s military action is “illegal” and “unconstitutional” unless authorized by Congress.
When President Obama spent seven months on a bombing campaign seeking regime change in Libya, Democrats didn’t demand that he seek authorization from Congress.
Democrats know that Trump has observed all the requirements of the War Powers Act of 1973, which gives him 60 days if he delivers regular reports to Congress.
Democrats could have given the president tentative support for those 60 days and presented a united American front to the world.
Trump unfairly ridicules a predecessor, President George W. Bush, for “forever wars” in the Middle East, but he understands deterrence. In Iran last June and again now, Trump has acted against manifest threats where Obama and President Biden refused to act.
The scope of the military action means the campaign can succeed even if the regime survives. Destroying Iran’s missiles and navy will make the region safer.
The complete elimination of Iran’s nuclear capability will require ground troops.
The larger gamble is regime change. Air campaigns alone rarely topple dictatorships.
The biggest worry — Trump will prematurely declare “total victory” before war aims are fully achieved. He faces political opposition from the Tucker Carlson fringe-right as well as from Democrats.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. Digital technology was used in the research, writing, and production of this article. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
