Security experts told the Daily Caller that President Donald Trump’s latest operation in Iran is part of a broader strategy to cripple Tehran’s ability to threaten the U.S. and its allies while also weakening hostile powers that depend on the regime.

President Donald Trump announced in an early morning video statement on Feb. 28 that U.S. and Israeli forces had launched major combat operations against Iran under Operation Epic Fury.

Skip Ad

The experts said the conflict fits Trump’s broader “peace through strength” foreign policy, arguing that a decisive strike on Iran could reshape not only the Middle East, but also America’s posture toward larger adversaries such as China and Russia.

“For over a decade now, President Trump has made resonant an immense frustration with the tendency of most American presidents to let conflicts and hostilities simmer in ways that destabilize entire regions and harm American interests,” William Thibeau, director of the American Military Project at The Claremont Institute, told the Caller.

Thibeau said the operation reflects Trump’s ambition to resolve not only the U.S.-Iran standoff, but also broader global entanglements.

“This means near-term escalation in the hope of a more permanent peace and a genuine pivot to other regions much closer to the thesis of the Administration’s National Security and National Defense Strategies,” he added.

The administration has also outlined evolving objectives for the conflict, suggesting the operation is intended to do far more than simply punish Tehran.

Trump said in a second video message that the U.S. needed to achieve several objectives before leaving Iran. War Secretary Pete Hegseth told the Caller that those objectives include ending Iran’s ability to project power against America and its allies, as well as stripping the regime of its ability to create and possess a nuclear weapon.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt expanded on those goals, citing the destruction of Iran’s navy, stopping the country from making and using IEDs or roadside bombs, and killing terrorists.

The operation follows the administration’s earlier June strikes on Iran under what it called “Operation Midnight Hammer.” Those strikes came after Israel first engaged in direct conflict with Iran, and the United States sent B-2 bombers to hit three key nuclear facilities. The administration told reporters at the time that the strikes had “obliterated” the nuclear sites.

But administration officials have told reporters during recent background calls that Iran was starting to rebuild its nuclear stockpiles. During negotiations with the U.S., Iran also allegedly made it clear that it believed it had the right to enrich uranium.

Jacob Olidort, director of American security at the America First Policy Institute, told the Caller that Operation Epic Fury reflects a broader rationale than the earlier strike.

“Midnight Hammer was framed behind taking Iran’s nuclear capability out … [Operation Epic Fury] was more a holistic reason,” Olidort told the Caller.

“The important point is that [Midnight Hammer] did not remove Iran’s intention to rebuild … those threats persisted,” he added. “[Iran] was looking to act in ways that would threaten the American people.”

Peter Doran, an adjunct senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Caller that Trump’s strikes stem from a desire to dismantle the Iranian regime permanently.

“When the Islamic Republic murdered 30,000 of their own people in the course of a few weeks, that really struck a chord,” Doran told the Caller, noting Trump’s commitment to enforcing past threats and ending the regime definitively.

Doran also pushed back on concerns from Trump supporters who argue the operation contradicts the president’s anti-war campaign pledges, pointing to Trump’s own inaugural rhetoric.

He explained, “[The president] promised at his inauguration to measure America’s successes not just by the battles that we win, but also the ones we end.”

Questions surrounding the operation’s precise timing remain. Axios reported that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believed they had the best chance to kill Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his inner circle during the Feb. 28 operation.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitted that Israel’s own intention to strike Iran first played a role in the timing of the operation, but later softened that statement. Other administration officials have said it was solely America’s decision to strike.

Experts told the Daily Caller that the operation could also ripple far beyond Iran, undermining America’s top adversaries and helping Trump shift U.S. attention and resources elsewhere.

“By going directly at the clerics in Iran, we are seeing the birth pangs of a more peaceful Middle East that alone will allow the United States to reallocate massive military and financial resources out of the Middle East and elsewhere in the world where they are needed, most notably in Asia,” Doran told the Caller.

Thibeau said that while China would likely continue expanding regardless, instability involving Iran could complicate Beijing’s position.

“China relies on Iran for anywhere from 10-20% of their domestic energy supply, so it is not insignificant to alter their access to such oil. Broadly, any future confrontation with China in the Pacific, as many think could happen, will require focus and prioritization of resources and organizational bandwidth,” Thibeau told the Caller.

“It’s hard to imagine achieving such focus if Iran continues to pose such a threat in the Middle East, especially one with nuclear ambitions,” Thibeau said, emphasizing that the U.S. will still need to rapidly build up its military capabilities.

Olidort similarly said China was not the immediate reason for the strike on Iran, but argued the operation could still weaken hostile powers aligned with Tehran. He pointed to Iran’s support for other regimes as an example, saying that if Putin loses a military supply line, the strikes in Iran could have an impact on the Russia-Ukraine war.

Recent actions underscore what some experts see as a broader pattern in Trump’s national security approach. Two months ago, Trump’s administration ousted Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro. Tensions with Cuba are also rising, though a deal still appears possible.

“I can sum it up in one word: oil,” Doran told the Caller. He described Venezuela, Iran, and Russia as key Chinese oil suppliers, with Cuba potentially next.

“It’s going to lose a third [supplier] in Iran if this operation is successful, and that will leave Vladimir Putin feeling very lonely and isolated, which is precisely where the president must put him if he is going to exert maximum diplomatic pressure to end the war in Ukraine and resolve the one conflict that he truly, deeply desires to end, and that is the fighting between Moscow and Kyiv,” Doran told the Caller.