About two months ago, Operation Epic Fury was launched, and many self-proclaimed foreign policy experts in Washington started raising alarms about potential negative consequences. The general feeling was that, from President Trump down, there wasn’t a visible long-term strategy in place to mitigate risks. Experts pointed to a possible drift of regional countries toward China, heightened aggression from Iran’s proxies, and a significant increase in energy prices. Even more concerning, many noted that the president failed to consult NATO allies before taking action, missing out on crucial support.
While Epic Fury isn’t over and its outcome is still unclear, there’s enough perspective now to assess whether these grim forecasts have come to pass. So far, it seems that the expert predictions have not fared well.
To begin with, China has not shown any sign of conflict. It hasn’t taken steps to protect its energy imports from the Gulf or expand its regional influence. Instead, in light of Iran’s aggressive actions, America’s partners in the Middle East are forging closer ties with the U.S. and Israel. Earlier this year, China lost Venezuela as an oil ally, and it may also be losing Iran.
The much-discussed “Ring of Fire” surrounding Israel, organized by Iranian proxies like the Houthis and Hezbollah, hasn’t materialized. In fact, the first three groups have largely been quiet, as Israel engages in significant diplomatic efforts toward a ceasefire with Lebanon, and the potential for a normalization deal is emerging alongside military moves against Hezbollah. Iran and its allies appear to be increasingly sidelined as they watch these developments unfold.
On the energy front, while Iran’s threats to control the Strait of Hormuz have pushed prices up, the worst predictions—like hitting $200 a barrel—haven’t happened. Yes, prices for gasoline and jet fuel are still high, but a full-blown energy crisis hasn’t occurred.
A couple of factors contribute to this stability. One is the successful establishment of pipelines that go around the Strait, particularly set up by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Another factor is the increase in U.S. oil and natural gas production, which reached record levels during this period. While this rise in production hasn’t completely compensated for the Gulf export limitations, it has cushioned the U.S. economy from the typical shocks this situation would usually create. American natural gas output has been especially vital, as prices remain stable amidst rising costs in Europe and Asia.
Looking at the support from Europe, the withdrawal of aid from nations that Donald Rumsfeld would have termed “old Europe” hasn’t made much of a difference. The reality is that these countries haven’t much to offer. Initially, capitals like Brussels and London reacted with anger at Epic Fury, but their response quickly turned into statements and virtual meetings to express unity, eventually promising to secure Hormuz once fighting ceased. Their ineffectiveness is apparent, but this could lead to necessary conversations about how Europe’s major economies approach their self-defense strategies.
There’s some positive news; NATO’s stance isn’t uniform. Baltic and Scandinavian nations, along with “new Europeans” like Poland and Romania, seem to lean towards supporting the U.S. They appear to recognize that, despite some mischaracterizations about the alliance, NATO hinges on U.S. participation. These countries seem to prioritize their safety and economic ties with the U.S. over maintaining outdated postures.
Although the landscape remains precarious, with President Trump issuing ultimatums to Iran regarding its nuclear program, many early predictions from experts about this conflict have not come to fruition. The consequences of Epic Fury might challenge other widely held beliefs, but one thing is clear: President Trump has fundamentally altered the Middle East and its future. It’s a moment for experts to reflect on these changes.
