The piece reflects a veteran’s shift from near-isolationism to active support for Operation Epic Fury, explaining why confronting Iran fits a Republican view of decisive, morally grounded defense, and drawing on personal service, Just War tradition, and the strategic impact on global terror networks.
My entire military career unfolded during the global war on terrorism, a time when the Army needed bodies and I answered that call for roughly two decades. I signed up amid unfolding crises and family responsibilities, expecting a finite commitment that stretched into a long, complicated mission. Those years left me skeptical of adventurism and wary of open-ended occupations that produced little strategic gain.
Watching successive weak leadership hand Iraq toward Iranian influence and see Afghanistan returned to a brutal regime hardened my skepticism. The old promise that “we fight them over there, so we won’t have to fight them here” felt hollow when borders were porous and threats persisted. That frustration pushed me close to isolationism, tempered by a conservative caution against using American power frivolously abroad.
So why cheer for Epic Fury? Because not all uses of force are equal, and some fights truly demand American resolve. This operation targets a regime that has spent 47 years sponsoring violence and undermining regional stability, a state whose proxies and terror networks have killed innocents around the world. When measured against the Founders’ warnings about military overreach and a Republican emphasis on clear objectives, Epic Fury meets the test: limited, focused, and aimed at a real threat.
My support also rests on a moral framework I take seriously: the Christian Just War tradition. That tradition asks whether force is defensive, proportionate, and directed toward restoring a just peace, not conquest. Epic Fury, as conducted so far, seeks to blunt a regime that openly calls for America’s destruction and that funnels resources to Hamas, Hezbollah, and other murderous groups. That makes it not a gratuitous war but a calibrated effort to remove a persistent danger.
This is personal. I deployed to eastern Afghanistan with the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division in 2011–2012, and I watched how Iranian influence showed up in the violence we faced. We lost men to attacks that bore Iranian fingerprints; twice I led soldiers who survived those strikes. For many of us who served, watching the nation respond with little more than sanctions for years felt inadequate when lives were on the line.
Politically, the operation weakens the funding pipeline for terrorist groups that depend on Tehran. Cut the cash and supplies, and you degrade the operational reach of Hamas, Hezbollah, and sundry proxies. From a Republican strategic standpoint, there is value in taking decisive action that forces adversaries to pay immediate costs for their long-term aggression rather than deferring the fight for future generations.
There are humanitarian consequences to consider, but Epic Fury has been framed as a targeted campaign designed to minimize civilian harm while dismantling terror infrastructure. That matters morally and tactically: crippling the regime’s capacity to sponsor violence reduces future civilian casualties world-wide. This differs from prior eras when rules of engagement and political micromanagement often left soldiers with one hand tied.
The last two decades saw missions constrained by legalistic ROE and political worry, a dynamic that let clever enemies exploit limits and hide behind civilian populations. That produced a kind of paralysis where victory was an option rather than the objective. The current approach gives commanders clearer authority to pursue and destroy threats, a change many veterans, myself included, welcome when it’s bounded by law and strategic clarity.
Beyond military mechanics, the Iranian people have taken the lead in pressing for change inside their country, and that shift legitimizes international pressure. Unlike externally imposed regime changes of the past, this moment aligns U.S. action with an internal popular push against tyranny. Supporting a movement that wants basic human rights and self-determination fits conservative principles about fostering freedom and opposing totalitarian impulses.
Finally, the broader strategic dividend may be immense: degrading Iran’s reach could trigger cascading failures in proxy networks across the globe, from the Middle East to parts of Africa where Iranian influence has grown. That means a chance to strike a decisive blow at the machinery that fuels much of today’s terrorism, rather than perpetually chasing splintered threats piecemeal. For many veterans who remember the price paid in blood and resources, that prospect carries moral clarity and political urgency.
Add comment