Operation Epic Fury: Did Trump Make the Right Call?

3/3/25. The war in Iran: Operation Epic Fury. Did Donald Trump make the right call? Should the United States have attacked Iran? I’ve been reading many comments adamantly opposed to the idea. Of course, I think we can all agree that we don’t want another forever war on terror with boots on the ground like what we had with Afghanistan and Iraq. We can hope and pray that does not happen here. The Trump administration has also made it clear that they don’t want that either. Yet I find many people too easily and quickly convinced that they are correct in their opinion that we should not have attacked Iran. But is it really that black and white? What about the 30,000-plus people that the Iranian regime just recently slaughtered? This was genocide against their own citizens. Tell me, how many people should it take to be slaughtered before a country decides enough is enough? What is the number? 30,000? 150,000? 500,000? 1,000,000? At what point do you decide it is a just cause to go to war? Should any country ever have been involved in World War II against Nazi Germany because of the Jews that were being slaughtered? What about the outrage that is expressed in our country over a single person who is killed in an incident with some law enforcement officer involved? They want justice, don’t they? So, where is the justice for the Iranian people who cannot defend themselves? Who will stand up for them? Who will fight for them? Is it just to turn a blind eye to this injustice? Would it have been just to turn a blind eye to Hitler or Stalin?

Besides the moral question, other things must be considered as well. Consider the fact that the Iranian regime has continually chanted “death to America” and “death to Israel,” while at the same time trying to build a nuclear arsenal, yet telling the world that they are only going to use it for “peaceful purposes.” Obama and Biden’s rationale was that as long as you guys promise to be good, then it’s okay, and you can do what you want. Trump’s rationale is that these people cannot be reasoned with, nor can they be trusted. They will stop at nothing to see everyone they hate to be destroyed. They have lost their minds. Isn’t that evident with their genocidal killings? Isn’t that evident with the other countries that recently just received missile strikes from Iran like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and others? Do we really want the Iranian regime to grow stronger? The President had to make a calculated decision. Take them out now with a preemptive strike, or wait much longer until they grow much stronger, and then they strike first. If he were to let that happen, American casualties would be greatly higher, along with the financial cost of war being higher. So yes, America does have an invested interest in taking care of Iran for our own sakes. Not to mention, there are probably intelligence reports about Iran’s plans and who they are colluding with that the average citizen is not privy to. But we already know that the regime has had ties to terrorist organizations like Hamas for quite some time. Iran has been funding terrorists. So, what happens when the terrorists lose their supply line? They lose their ability to carry out large-scale terrorist actions. I’m sure Trump is aware of that. The bottom line is, terrorists cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

As I said, none of us want an endless war, but this strategic operation was necessary sooner or later.

The Iranians have been freed from their oppressive leader. From all across the nation, the 500,000 to 1,000,000 Iranian population in America have expressed their gratitude to the United States for freeing their country, along with the many citizens living in Iran. The United States and Israel are giving them their freedom back. But since that does not fit the media's narrative, you don't hear about that much...

Part 2

3/6/26. Follow-up post on Operation Epic Fury.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that the United States was lying to the American people about Iran building nuclear weapons. After all, it would not be the first time the United States lied. During the presidency of George W. Bush, after 9/11, we were told that there were WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) in the Middle East that we needed to eliminate. But our soldiers were there forever, and there were no WMDs. So, what if that’s the case today with Iran? In order to hold such a position, we would have to deny all of the credibility of the Trump administration, the Biden administration, the Obama administration, along with the credibility of the Iranians in every negotiation they had with the United States, speaking about the existence of their nuclear supplies and enrichment program. You can argue about what Iran was planning on using the enriched uranium for. But the fact that they were processing it cannot be argued. However, after the negotiations in the Iranians being offered free nuclear fuel from the United States, Iran refused. This indicated to the United States that they had absolutely no plans to use their uranium for peaceful purposes. Even the previous strike on their nuclear facilities by the B-2 bombers the other year did not seem to stop them or deter them in any way, as they were hellbent on developing nuclear weapons no matter what. They did not want to negotiate anymore. They did not want to relinquish anything. Whether they had nuclear weapons or were about to have nuclear weapons at this particular point in time is not relevant. The fact of the matter is, given the time, they certainly would achieve them.

But someone might say, “So what? Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, so why can’t Iran?” Because those countries are not crazy like the Iranian regime. They don’t chant “death to America,” “death to Israel.” They don’t slaughter thousands of their own people. They don’t fund and support terrorist organizations against the United States. They’re not used as China and Russia’s proxy against the U.S. and NATO allies. But Iran is.

However, just because the Iranian regime is Middle Eastern, that does not mean they are exactly like the other Middle Eastern countries around them. That would be making a false analogy logical fallacy. Therefore, this argument is invalid: “Why can’t Iran, as a Middle Eastern country, have a nuclear weapon as other Middle Eastern countries have nuclear weapons?” It would also be false to say that the citizens have the same temperamental nature and rational sanity as the military/government of Iran. Therefore, arguments that point out the great and courteous hospitality of many Middle Eastern countries are not a relevant factor for considering what the Iranian government is. Since, regardless of that fact, they have been brutal and terrorizing in their governance and actions.

What about their nuclear program that was said to be destroyed last year by the B-2 bombers? Was it destroyed or not? Maybe it was, but maybe not all of it. The Iranians keep these things hidden in underground bunkers and tunnels. How can the United States know how far those tunnels go? What if there are other places they have their nuclear program hiding that our intelligence agencies did not find until later, or what if it was never found at all? But what if it was all destroyed? Is it possible that they could have bought enriched uranium on the black market or from another country? It is within the realm of possibility, isn’t it? Regardless, Steve Witkoff said that “Both the Iranian negotiators said to us directly with, you know, no shame, that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60% [enriched uranium], “and they’re aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs, and that was the beginning of their negotiating stance” (New York Post). Witkoff also said that once the uranium reaches 60 percent, it can be brought to 90 percent weapons-grade in roughly one week.

“They’ve been saying this for years about Iran being close to having a nuclear weapon, but time goes by, and they still don’t have one, and they’ve never had one.” Do you know why that is? It’s because the nuclear weapons were their end goal. But in order to get there, they needed to build up their military and economic force to become so powerful and almost untouchable that they then decide to convert their uranium into nuclear weapons, where they then become untouchable like North Korea. However, if they had done that process too early, they would have been found out and eliminated. They know that. So that’s why this threat has been dragging out for some time. It was never their plan to make nuclear weapons as soon as possible. It was to make nuclear weapons as soon as strategically reasonable. The Trump administration saw through their nonsense while Obama and Biden were taken for fools.

What about regime change? Will the United States attempt to plant someone in their [Iranian] government to be their puppet? Was that their plan all along? I don’t think anyone can make a definitive statement on that or elevate this issue as if it is the only reason the United States took out their leader. I think that would be severely exaggerating the issue. Trump did say that he wanted to be “involved” in the next leader being selected. But what does “involved” mean? Does it mean he chooses the exact person without anyone else’s agreement? Or does he simply mean that he wants to have some kind of “say” in who or who doesn’t become the next leader? Obviously, none of us want a leader that the Iranian people do not want because we know that in the long term, that strategy will not work. I’m hoping Trump knows and agrees with that. I personally think that the Iranian people should choose and/or use a neighboring country friendly to America to help sustain that transition and uphold power and government functions. This way, order can be restored, and U.S. soldiers will not need to be stationed there to do that job. Will regime change work, though? I think it has a much greater possibility of success since the Iranian people are not like their government. For that reason, I do not think it would be right to compare this situation with previous instances where the U.S. attempted regime change through deposing and then reinstalling a leader.

Someone might say, “This isn’t about nuclear weapons at all!” But does that person have evidence to support the negation of nuclear weapons as being the issue, or at least “one of” the issues for why Trump made his decision? Now, I don’t think the only reason Trump did this was for the nuclear reason. I think that he is many more steps ahead than what many of us can see on the surface. My guess is that Trump is also counting on this global chess move to gain leverage over Russia and China because of the oil. This could potentially lead to Russia and Ukraine agreeing on some kind of peace deal while also preventing China from invading Taiwan. Which, according to the Pentagon, they planned to do by 2027. But if China is economically weakened and Trump holds the upper hand, China will have to abandon their plan to invade Taiwan. In the long run, I think that peace in the world is Trump’s goal. But sometimes, peace can be costly.

So, for those of you who think that this is just Israel’s war that the United States got dragged into, I urge you to think more comprehensively rather than resorting to emotional reactivity. Do some thinking and think through these scenarios. Don’t just passively accept the media’s narrative without critically thinking about these things. There is more here than meets the eye.

Sources:

Iran claimed to have enough uranium for 11 nuclear bombs, US envoy Witkoff says

China preparing to 'win a war on Taiwan' by 2027, new Pentagon report warns