E-Paper
Operation Epic Fury: What lies ahead
This article is authored by B Bala Bhaskar, former ambassador and specialist, West Asia and Gulf affairs, New Delhi.
On February 28, Israel and the US launched coordinated strikes on Iran under what was described as Operation Epic Fury. Though officially framed as a pre-emptive action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the strikes are inseparable from a deeper historical rupture — one that dates back to the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. The revolution rested on two foundational pillars: the doctrine of rule by the jurist (Wilayat al Faqih) and the expulsion of American and Israeli influence from Iran’s political order, through explicit denunciations of “death to America” and “death to Israel”. From the vantage point of Washington and Tel Aviv, this was not merely ideological antagonism; it represented a profound strategic loss of influence in a country that had long been central to their regional calculus.
The current confrontation cannot be understood solely through the nuclear lens. While nuclear proliferation concerns are genuine, the political psychology of 1979 has lingered for decades. The desire to reverse the strategic consequences of the Revolution — to contain, weaken, or potentially re-engineer Iran’s regional role — has shaped policy across successive American administrations. At the end of the day, President Trump declared that “Khamenei, one of the most evil people in history, is dead”, which was later confirmed by Iran.
Predictions that oil would lose its geopolitical centrality in the renewable energy transition have proven premature. Hydrocarbon reserves continue to be discovered, and global demand remains resilient. The shale revolution transformed the US from a net importer into a significant energy exporter, reinforcing oil’s strategic weight. Under the presidency of Donald Trump, energy dominance became a declared pillar of policy.
Against this backdrop, countries such as Venezuela and Iran — both endowed with substantial energy reserves and strategic export capacity — have regained geopolitical salience. Beyond its energy role, Tehran has strengthened bilateral ties with Russia — formalised in a comprehensive strategic partnership treaty encompassing defence, energy and economic cooperation — while cooperation with China has also intensified amid shared interests in sanctions evasion and regional security. This underscores that the attack on Iran is also part of a broader contest over energy, alliances, and influence in West Asia.
Despite campaign rhetoric promising to end West Asian wars by President Trump, recent years have witnessed multiple military interventions. The latest strikes on Iran, carried out without congressional approval, mark a qualitative escalation. The declaration in the June bombing, that Iranian nuclear facilities were “obliterated”, was subsequently reframed as a preventive action. The oscillation in conflicting messaging underscores the ambiguity, perhaps deliberate, surrounding their stated and unstated aims.
For Israel, the narrative is clearer. After decades in which conventional Arab armies were seen as the primary threat, the strategic focus shifted to Iran. Israel’s leadership describes Tehran’s nuclear programme and regional network — including Hezbollah and other allied groups — as an “existential threat.” This perception catalysed unprecedented alignments. The Abraham Accords intended to normalise relations between Israel and several Arab states, reflecting a shared apprehension about Iranian influence. However, Qatar’s hosting of major US military bases proved no shield against the Israeli attack on Qatar on September 9, 2025. This attack marked the first direct Israeli military strike on the territory of a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member state. The episode marked a turning point: Israel’s expanding reach is now viewed as more destabilising by the GCC countries than Iran’s revolutionary regime—a stark reversal of earlier assumptions.
Iran, as warned earlier, has retaliated against US bases across the Gulf — in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE and Bahrain, although the Gulf governments swiftly distanced themselves, asserting that their territories were not used as launch pads. Public opinion in much of the Arab world remains sceptical of western military interventions. Governments now face the delicate task of balancing security partnerships with domestic sentiment. Intense diplomatic engagement is likely in the coming days to prevent further escalation.
Beyond the nuclear question lies a more ambitious — and controversial — objective: whether sustained pressure can fundamentally weaken the Iranian state and eventually catalyse internal change. Some in Washington appear to believe that economic strain and military shock could provoke popular revolt. Such assumptions risk underestimating the ideological foundations of post-revolutionary Iran. The Islamic Republic’s legitimacy is anchored in narratives of historical injustice, sacrifice and resistance deeply embedded in Shia political theology. Over four decades, this ideological framework has been institutionalised across the state apparatus, education system and security structures. As a result, national identity and political authority have become closely intertwined with the idea of resisting external domination. The leader’s killing will not deter them; it will deepen their resolve. The death of Ayatollah Khamenei would likely be framed within Iran’s Shia political theology as an act of martyrdom, joining the symbolic lineage of figures such as Ali ibn Abi Talib and Husayn ibn Ali for renewed Shia solidarity rather than a moment of fragmentation.
History suggests that external military pressure rarely produces the intended internal upheaval. On the contrary, foreign strikes often consolidate domestic support around embattled leadership. Calls for a “proud nation” to rise against its rulers are unlikely to resonate when framed through the optics of foreign aggression.
West Asia, still recovering from recent conflicts, cannot easily absorb another open-ended confrontation. Whether Operation Epic Fury achieves its stated objectives or not, the roots of this crisis lie at the centre of a four-decade struggle. It is over sovereignty, ideology, energy, and regional order — a struggle whose consequences extend far beyond Iran’s borders. An extended conflict risks destabilising Gulf regimes and reigniting unfinished political currents that earlier upheavals failed to resolve.
The world, already fragile, cannot afford this prolonged instability. The immediate economic consequence may be volatility in oil markets. A spike to $100 per barrel is plausible if escalation continues, with inflationary consequences for energy-importing economies.
For India, the crisis presents a double vulnerability. The Gulf is central to its energy security, and it is also home to nearly eight million Indian expatriates whose safety and livelihoods could be directly affected by any prolonged instability.
This article is authored by B Bala Bhaskar, former ambassador and specialist, West Asia and Gulf affairs, New Delhi.
