President Donald Trump authorized the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, missile sites, and leadership targets Feb. 28.
Operation Epic Fury resulted in the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and many other senior officials. These actions also produced six confirmed American service member deaths with 18 American service members being seriously wounded in action, according to U.S. Central Command reports on retaliatory Iranian attacks on regional bases.
There is no overt, coherent message about the endgame in Iran. Naturally, this is leading Americans to ask: Could there be a deeper play Trump is making that has little to do with Iranian nukes or a hostile Islamic regime?
So far we’ve heard that although we killed the whole Iranian regime, this was not a regime change war. And although we obliterated their nuclear program, we had to do this because of their nuclear program. And although Iran was not planning any attacks on the US, they also might…
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 2, 2026
Some experts are highlighting the likelihood that Operation Epic Fury has less to do with toppling a radical Islamic regime and more to do with China’s dependence on Iran. The U.S. targets weaker allies of its primary adversaries, like China, to impose costs on them without direct great-power confrontation. We’ve already seen this take place when Trump ordered the Venezuelan raid, capturing former President Nicolás Maduro. (Sign up for Mary Rooke’s weekly newsletter here!)
Maduro’s arrest served two purposes. Not only did it remove a brutal dictator responsible for aiding the drug cartels flooding American communities with poison, but it also removed China’s access to cheap energy. They were paying Venezuelan pennies for their oil, something China desperately needs to fund its economic and military activities.
Now that Trump has successfully neutralized China’s connection to Venezuela, Iran functions as a central node in this network through oil supplies, military cooperation, and proxy forces.
Iran supplies critical resources to China and serves as a forward base for influence. Data from 2025 show that China purchased more than 80 percent of Iran’s exported oil, amounting to approximately 1.38 million barrels per day and accounting for 13.4 to 13.5 percent of China’s total seaborne crude imports, according to Reuters. This volume, acquired at discounted rates using shadow fleets to evade sanctions, supports Beijing’s energy needs and allows it to stockpile or redirect other supplies.
Experts on Chinese strategy, including Gordon Chang, confirm that Beijing’s extensive ties to Tehran make it vulnerable to such pressure.
Chang, a senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute, has repeatedly identified Iran as a vector for Chinese power projection. Chang argues that all roads lead to China in Middle East conflicts, emphasizing that Beijing bankrolls Tehran through oil purchases and technology to sustain its proxy activities against U.S. interests and allies. Chang argues that disrupting this flow compels China to seek more expensive alternatives from Russia, Saudi Arabia, or other suppliers, straining its economy and exposing supply chain weaknesses.
“I believe that President Trump is going after the Chinese, and he’s not doing it directly, but he is doing it indirectly, and he’s cutting off their sources of support,” Chang said. “Oil, for instance. Venezuela supplies maybe 3 to 4 percent of China’s imported oil, but Iran was somewhere between 15 and 23 percent, depending on the year. And that’s important because when you put those two numbers together, you get a significant portion of China’s imported oil has now been taken off the board.”
China’s economy requires stable, affordable energy to fuel manufacturing and maintain growth targets. While Trump’s assumed strategy may disrupt China’s interests in the immediate, it came at the highest price.
Six American service members have been killed in action as of Tuesday afternoon, with 18 American service members being seriously wounded. Trump warned Americans in an address shortly after the initial strikes on Iran that casualties are an unfortunate reality of conflicts. And in an interview after American lives had been lost, Trump said, “We have three, but we expect casualties, but in the end it’s going to be a great deal for the world.”
Still, this optimism doesn’t answer the question: Is a global deal worth American blood? And why now?
If the goal is to beat back China, putting one of our greatest adversaries on the back foot, then this argument must be sold to the American people. Only one in four Americans supports the strikes on Iran, according to a Reuters/Ipsos survey released Sunday. Trump has a duty to explain to Americans why he’s sending our soldiers off to a war … that’s not a war.
The mounting pressure from Americans on the Trump administration to answer “why” ultimately forced their hand. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton spoke to reporters explaining how the timeline of the Iran strikes was seemingly forced on the U.S.
“It was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone – the United States or Israel or anyone – they were going to respond, and respond against the United States,” Rubio said. “We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”
“Because Israel was determined to act with or without the U.S., our commander in chief and the administration … had a very difficult decision to make,” Johnson said. “They had to evaluate the threats to the U.S., to our troops, to our installations, to our assets in the region and beyond.”
“Israel was determined to act in their own defense here, with or without American support. Why? Because Israel faced what they deem to be an existential threat,” he added.
“Israel faced an existential risk, and they were prepared to strike Iran alone,” Cotton told Fox News. “If that happened, Iran was very likely to target our troops. That may address the question of ‘why now.’”
These statements triggered significant backlash from the “America First” wing of Trump’s base for good reason. The interpretation of their statements seems to confirm that Israeli intentions, rather than an independent U.S. threat assessment, at least in part drove the timing and scope of American involvement.
To the base who were promised no new wars under Trump, the idea that a foreign country would have the ability to force our hand in a situation where American soldiers are losing their lives feels like a betrayal beyond measure.
It’s easy to support Trump’s military missions, like the initial Iranian strikes in July 2025, when our fighters managed an impossible mission without detection or casualties. They are expertly planned out, quickly executed, and carried out with precision. However, this is already different from the rest. We aren’t striking and leaving. There is no end in sight.
In Trump’s address to Congress over his decision to strike Iran, he admits that the administration does not know when U.S. military action will end in the region.
“Although the United States desires a quick and enduring peace, it is not possible at this time to know the full scope and duration of military operations that may be necessary,” Trump said.
There is something to be said that Operation Epic Fury is different than the Global War on Terror (GWOT), but the longer the U.S. is in Iran, the greater the toll of American lives is likely to be.
We’ve already seen what it does to a generation when the best and bravest never come back home. Our society can’t handle anymore of these Americans being lost to the Middle East.
Trump promised an end to this type of suicidal governance, which kills the best America has to offer. He mocked previous administrations for threatening war in Iran over diplomacy. But now we are being told it was impossible to avoid and imperative to the U.S. national security. (ROOKE: Terror Attack Exposes US Legal Pathway To Bloodshed)
Without a clearer picture, at least yet, this non-war war is not worth American blood, especially considering the reality that while our best and brightest were sent to the Middle East, the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations were actively filling our communities with their worst.
Follow Mary Rooke on X: @MaryRooke