Operation Epic Fury: The Depths of the Forever War Trap

The scope and context of Operation Epic Fury

Operation Epic Fury, launched on February 28th, stands as a case study in how limited military campaigns can evolve into prolonged conflicts. Retired naval aviator Ward Carroll introduced the discussion, noting how the geopolitical tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz and other strategic waterways have been central to ongoing security challenges.

Maritime expert Sal Mercogliano emphasized how this situation echoes historical patterns of prolonged engagements. He pointed out that, despite high hopes for quick resolutions, such conflicts often morph into protracted struggles due to their complexities. The initial objectives of Operation Epic Fury, which include securing maritime chokepoints and curtailing potential security threats posed by Iran, have faced significant challenges. This has been compounded by the realities of regional geopolitics and the strategic actions of adversaries like Iran and its proxies.

Carroll warned that such dynamics are consistent with the broader concept of a "forever war." This phenomenon emerges when limited operations lack a clear and achievable endgame, effectively entangling participants in seemingly endless cycles of conflict. He noted that the Trump administration's objective of resolving Iranian nuclear threats and maritime control in the region has become increasingly elusive.

Mercogliano contextualized the initial measures associated with the operation, which included blockades and selective strikes. In an effort to diminish Iranian influence over global trade, U.S. forces have disrupted shipping traffic and targeted vessels linked to Iran or its proxies. Nevertheless, profound challenges, whether geopolitical, operational, or ethical, continue to hinder the fulfillment of these ambitious objectives.

Maritime impacts and economic warfare

The strategic waterways surrounding the Middle East, most notably the Strait of Hormuz, the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, and the Suez Canal, remain significant choke points for global maritime traffic. Mercogliano painted a vivid picture of how disruptions in these regions have had far-reaching consequences on global shipping and energy markets.

He detailed how maritime traffic coming out of the Strait of Hormuz slowed to a trickle, turning what had been a critical global artery for petroleum exports into a flashpoint of economic and military tension. A U.S.-led blockade aimed at curbing Iranian influence on the high seas has scattered Iranian vessels to various ports worldwide, further stymying trade. Moreover, attacks on maritime infrastructure by proxies such as the Houthis and potentially other actors have exacerbated the crisis, with significant disruptions reported near locations like Yanbu and the Suez Canal.

China's ability to continue loading at Yanbu and operating through the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait has caused further ripple effects in the region, leading to a reconfiguration of global shipping routes. Mercogliano highlighted the increasing reliance on the Suez Canal as maritime traffic avoids hotspots, although the canal cannot handle the redirected volume, leading to critical bottlenecks. Recent attacks on a natural gas site near Alexandria have also raised alarms, with no clear attribution to any actor, whether it be Iran, the Houthis, or other potential antagonists.

Mercogliano argued that these disruptions are already affecting global oil supply, with major consumers like the United States, Japan, and China tapping into their strategic petroleum reserves to mitigate shocks. However, he warned of the long-term consequences: the depletion of these reserves and the added costs from extended shipping routes—up to 22 extra days of sailing around Africa for some vessels—are likely to hurt consumers globally, both at the pump and in consumer goods pricing.

Adding to this economic strain are increasing insurance costs for vessels traversing the affected regions. Defense analyst Rain Waters mentioned the staggering rise in insurance rates for ships navigating the perilous waters of the Strait of Hormuz, illustrating the financial burden on global trade. He cautioned that these costs, while not an absolute deterrent for maritime commerce, add significant pressure on businesses relying on these shipping lanes.

The limits of air power in sustained conflict

The conversation naturally turned to the effectiveness of air power in the ongoing conflict. Rain Waters underscored a critical issue: the diminishing returns of extended bombing campaigns. Despite precise strikes degrading Iranian military capabilities, this strategy alone has its limits in achieving broader geopolitical objectives.

Ward Carroll pointed to an emerging consensus among intelligence agencies like the CIA and DIA, as well as concerns voiced by senior military and political leaders, that bombing campaigns are unlikely to force Iran to make significant concessions. Carroll quoted a cabinet member who candidly remarked on the administration's nebulous goal of simply "winning" without articulating a clear endgame. This mindset, Carroll argued, is emblematic of the missteps that can turn limited campaigns into protracted conflicts.

Moreover, Carroll cited remarks from military leadership, including Chairman Kaine, who has consistently warned about the constraints of air power. He highlighted the precarious balance between targeting critical infrastructure to apply pressure and the risk of alienating regional partners or causing significant civilian harm. This dilemma is exacerbated by the potential message that such actions send to Iran, specifically, that the U.S. is willing to escalate further, thereby increasing the risk of long-term entanglement.

Both Waters and Mercogliano explored the strategic implications of an overreliance on air power. Waters remarked on the operational strain this approach places on U.S. forces, referencing the pressing issue of military retention and the morale of personnel operating in grueling conditions. Six months into the conflict, service members are grappling with heightened threats, including drone and missile strikes on bases, which are taking a physical and psychological toll.

Mercogliano added historical context to the debate, drawing comparisons to other conflicts, such as the Vietnam War. He pointed out that wars often start with ambitious objectives and robust confidence in military capabilities, but the realities of execution and diplomacy typically complicate those plans. Using examples from past conflicts, he argued that ending wars has proven to be far more difficult than starting them. This is a reflection on the structural challenges underlying Operation Epic Fury.

Navigating Escalation Traps in Military Strategy

Ward Carroll emphasizes that Operation Epic Fury underscores the complexities of addressing entrenched geopolitical issues, particularly in regions like the Middle East. He notes how presidents before Donald Trump avoided direct confrontation with Iran, likely recognizing the limited ability to achieve drastic objectives such as regime change, dismantling nuclear programs, and ending ballistic missile threats. Carroll argues that while the military infrastructure to sustain operations exists, transitioning from tactical success to achieving geopolitical objectives has proven to be an unresolved challenge.

He also highlights how the ongoing confrontation has introduced new dynamics, particularly around the control of strategic maritime chokepoints. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz and Iran's leveraging of its critical routes has created significant global disruptions. Carroll sees these developments as a cautionary tale of how military operations can inadvertently provoke retaliatory measures, deepening conflicts rather than resolving them.

Rain Waters elaborates on the concept of an "escalation trap." He borrows a Taliban saying: "You have the clocks; we have the time," to explain that Iran's strategy likely involves waiting out U.S. political cycles. Iran's authoritarian government, as Sal Mercogliano adds, enables it to weather public discontent and economic hardship more effectively than democratic nations like the United States, where public opinion plays a key role in sustaining military campaigns.

Mercogliano warns of the risks of further escalation, particularly given the opacity surrounding Iran's military decision-making. With key Iranian leaders eliminated, there are growing uncertainties about the command and control of their naval forces, and the possibility of rogue elements targeting commercial shipping in strategic waterways like the Persian Gulf and the Suez Canal. He also underscores that increased maritime attacks, including on liquefied natural gas carriers, highlight the precarious state of global maritime security. According to Mercogliano, provoking retaliation risks transforming the region into a tinderbox, heightening the potential for catastrophic events such as the blockage of critical shipping routes. Both he and Rain Waters express concern that protracted negotiations and periodic escalations may create an enduring cycle of conflict, with no clear resolution in sight.

The discussion also touches on the role of political posturing in prolonging the conflict. Carroll, along with the other panelists, suggests that the rigid demands articulated by the U.S., particularly the terms that involve Iran abandoning its nuclear ambitions and relinquishing control of vital economic lifelines like the Strait of Hormuz, make a diplomatic resolution less likely. The panel collectively raises questions about how this narrative, one of sustained pressure to achieve near-impossible objectives, aligns with the harsh realities of geopolitical compromise.

Collaborative Strategy and Unconventional Approaches

A particularly striking development in Operation Epic Fury is the U.S. military's recent push for unorthodox solutions to its challenges in Iran. Ward Carroll introduces a report about senior military officials soliciting creative and unconventional ideas to pressure Iran. While this "crowdsourcing" tactic, as Carroll calls it, has generated mixed reactions, he speculates that the approach might tap into valuable insights from junior personnel often overlooked because of rank or geographical separation.

Rain Waters provides a nuanced perspective, acknowledging the unconventional nature of such a request while highlighting its potential positives. He suggests that the email could enable lower-ranking service members or personnel stationed far from senior command to share innovative ideas that might otherwise never surface. However, Waters also recognizes that the optics of such a move, especially when the plea for ideas becomes public knowledge, could make it seem like an act of desperation. He points out that while such outreach might appear unorthodox, a novel idea brought forth from unexpected quarters could provide exactly the kind of fresh approach needed in an increasingly stalemated situation.

On a broader level, Mercogliano relates this approach to past instances when informal networks of communication, such as interactions between military cadets and deployed personnel in previous conflicts, provided necessary insights absent from official channels. He argues that unconventional brainstorming, while unorthodox, can be crucial during moments when traditional tactics have reached their limits. Citing examples from his firefighting and teaching experience, Mercogliano advocates for open dialogues, whether formal or informal, that might yield new strategies.

In terms of ideas, Mercogliano mentions waging economic warfare to intensify pressure on Iran. One unconventional proposal he highlights involves seizing Iranian oil tankers and holding them in far-off locations like Diego Garcia, to strain Iran’s economic lifelines. He believes such tactics could capitalize on Iran's heavy dependence on its oil exports, potentially forcing them to reconsider their strategy. However, he warns of the danger of diminishing returns in the military campaign itself, where continued airstrikes might eventually become futile and escalate the risk of U.S. aircraft being shot down, an outcome that could exacerbate the conflict.

Both Waters and Mercogliano note that the Iranian regime is skilled at using its geopolitical position to inflict economic harm on a global scale, emphasizing its role in disrupting global oil supply chains. They argue that while the U.S. and its allies strive to impose costs on Iran, the regime has proven adept at exploiting global interdependencies to prolong the conflict and avoid conceding.

What was said, and when

The points this article makes, and the moment in the recording where each was said. Everything below was said by Sal Mercogliano. Every time opens the recording at that moment.

• Operation Epic Fury was launched on February 28th. 06:25.
• The initial objectives of Operation Epic Fury include securing maritime chokepoints and curtailing potential security threats posed by Iran. 06:25.
• The Trump administration's objective was to resolve Iranian nuclear threats and maritime control in the region. 01:36.
• Initial measures of Operation Epic Fury included blockades and selective strikes. 04:05.
• U.S. forces disrupted shipping traffic and targeted vessels linked to Iran or its proxies. 04:05.
• Disruptions in strategic waterways like the Strait of Hormuz have had far-reaching consequences on global shipping and energy markets. 04:37.
• Maritime traffic coming out of the Strait of Hormuz slowed significantly. 03:39.
• The U.S.-led blockade scattered Iranian vessels to various ports worldwide. 04:05.
• Attacks on maritime infrastructure by proxies have caused significant disruptions near locations like Yanbu and the Suez Canal. 03:39.
• China continues to load oil at Yanbu and operate through the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait despite regional tensions. 04:05.
• The Suez Canal has seen bottlenecks due to redirecting shipping traffic from other hotspots. 05:10.
• Recent attacks on a natural gas site near Alexandria have raised alarms, though attribution remains unclear. 07:08.
• Major oil consumers like the United States, Japan, and China are tapping into strategic petroleum reserves to mitigate supply shocks. 08:16.
• Extended shipping routes have added up to 22 extra days of sailing around Africa for some vessels. 09:03.
• Insurance rates for ships navigating the Strait of Hormuz have risen significantly. 15:10.
• Rain Waters highlighted the financial burden caused by increased shipping insurance rates. 15:10.
• Bombing campaigns have degraded Iranian military capabilities but have limitations in affecting their geopolitical objectives. 12:54.
• Ward Carroll pointed to a consensus among intelligence agencies and military leaders that bombing is unlikely to force significant Iranian concessions. 15:41.
• Six months into Operation Epic Fury, personnel are facing heightened threats including drone and missile strikes on bases. 11:03.
• The Iranian government, being authoritarian, can weather public discontent and economic hardship more effectively than democratic nations. 35:45.
• Key Iranian leaders have been eliminated, creating uncertainties about the command and control of their naval forces. 30:43.
• Mercogliano warns that increased maritime attacks could transform the region into a tinderbox, heightening risks for global shipping. 04:05.
• The U.S. has rigid demands that Iran abandons nuclear ambitions and relinquishes control of vital maritime choke points. 34:14.
• A proposal involving seizing Iranian oil tankers to intensify economic pressure. 28:40.
• Mercogliano warns that continued airstrikes might eventually become futile and risk U.S. aircraft being shot down. 29:26.
• Iran's ability to inflict economic harm globally through disruptions in oil supply chains. 25:50.