United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Tuesday that Operation Epic Fury, described as the US-Israel conflict with Iran that began on February 28 and sparked regional tensions, has concluded after achieving its objectives. Washington now favors “the path of peace,” Rubio stated.
On the same day, US President Donald Trump declared a pause in Project Freedom, a US military operation launched the previous day to guide stranded ships through the Strait of Hormuz.
However, seemingly contradicting Rubio’s definitive stance, Trump posted on social media on Wednesday that Epic Fury would “be at an end” if Iran “agrees to give what has been agreed to.” Otherwise, Trump warned, “the bombing starts, and it will be, sadly, at a much higher level and intensity than it was before.”
This raises the crucial question: Is the US-Israel conflict with Iran truly over? We delve into the rapidly evolving US rhetoric.
What did Rubio say about Operation Epic Fury?
During a White House media briefing on Tuesday, Rubio informed reporters that Operation Epic Fury had concluded.
“The Operation Epic Fury is concluded. We achieved the objectives of that operation,” Rubio affirmed.
“We’re not cheering for an additional situation to occur. We would prefer the path of peace. What the president would prefer is a deal,” he added, referencing Pakistan’s efforts to facilitate direct talks between Iran and the US. The first and only round of these talks in Islamabad last month ended without a resolution, though both sides have since submitted new proposals.
Burcu Ozcelik, a senior research fellow for Middle East security at the UK-based Royal United Services Institute, told Al Jazeera that “The on-again, off-again talks with Iran alongside Trump’s abrupt about-turn on Operation Freedom to guide vessels out of the Strait of Hormuz has created unwelcome frenzy in the Gulf.”
She further explained, “It also reflects the highly fraught and almost frantic diplomatic backchannelling aimed to extract deep concessions from Tehran on the nuclear issue that will lock in commitments that exceed previous conditions and which will convince the US to lift the blockade on Iranian ports and unlock sanctions relief, thereby effectively ending the conflict.”
Ozcelik noted that Iran, conversely, seeks guarantees that this marks the definitive end of the conflict, not merely a pause.
What did Trump say about Project Freedom?
Also on Tuesday, Trump told reporters that Project Freedom had been paused “based on the request” of Pakistan and other countries, and due to “Great Progress” made towards a “Complete and Final Agreement” with Iranian representatives.
Project Freedom appeared to challenge Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas supplies are shipped in peacetime. Iran’s threats to attack ships in the strait have effectively blockaded it since the US-Israel conflict began. On April 13, the US imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports, intensifying the standoff around the strait.
Following Trump’s announcement of Project Freedom, Iran stated that ships attempting to use the strait without permission from its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) would be fired upon, reigniting fears of renewed hostilities. The US president’s announcement triggered a war of words, with claims and counterclaims about strikes continuing throughout Monday.
Initially, Iran’s Fars News Agency claimed it had struck a US warship with drones after the vessel ignored orders to turn back from the Strait of Hormuz. However, the US military’s Central Command denied any US ship had been hit, claiming instead to have sunk at least six IRGC vessels. Iran denied this. Tehran then published a new map extending its claimed area of control over the strait into the territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates, escalating regional confrontation concerns.
The UAE accused Iran of launching strikes on its Fujairah port, an important oil pipeline site, and causing a fire in an oil refinery.
According to Trump, the US operation was halted on Tuesday to allow for negotiations with Iran.
“We have mutually agreed that, while the [US] Blockade will remain in full force and effect, Project Freedom (The Movement of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz) will be paused for a short period of time to see whether or not the Agreement can be finalized and signed,” he wrote on his Truth Social platform. Iran has not immediately responded to this.
Shahram Akbarzadeh, a professor in Middle East and Central Asian politics at Australia’s Deakin University, told Al Jazeera that while the exact reason for Trump’s pause of Project Freedom is unclear, it occurs amidst growing anti-war public opinion in the US.
“At the same time, Trump may be losing patience with the conflict; he says he has time to drag this out,” Akbarzadeh noted. “But in reality, Trump has a short attention span and needs to secure a win – soon. Pausing Project Freedom allows diplomacy to pick up pace, bringing the US and Iran closer to a deal that Trump would label as a win.”
Is this the end of the conflict with Iran?
Not entirely. Akbarzadeh suggested that pausing Project Freedom could serve as “the beginning of the end for the conflict.”
“We know that the Iranians are desperate for an end, so there is little chance of them resuming attacks on the US Navy if Trump sends explicit signals that diplomacy has a green light,” he said.
However, Akbarzadeh cautioned, “The problem is that we have been here before. Earlier opportunities were squandered because Israel insisted that the US could get a better deal or because Trump misread the situation and expected the military option to grant him more concessions.”
What happens next?
Predicting the future is challenging, but neither side appears to desire a return to full-scale conflict, suggesting both are likely to prioritize a diplomatic resolution, Akbarzadeh stated.
Still, “neither can afford to be seen as the loser,” he added. “They feel their public image needs to be preserved for their own respective domestic audience. This complicates negotiations and reaching a deal.”
Ozcelik believes what happens next “will be determined by what the fractured leadership in Tehran commits to on the nuclear file.”
“While it has rejected that talks involve curbs on Iran’s nuclear programme, this type of posturing has aimed to assuage domestic hardline and Iranian nationalists who are rattled by the US-Israel strikes and see nuclear issues from a nationalist, sovereign rights perspective.”
She predicted that the United Nations might soon issue a formal condemnation of Iran for blockading the Strait of Hormuz.
“But the real pressure, mounting by the day, is the economic one – that shutting the strait is imposing punishing costs on Iran’s economic recovery prospects,” she concluded. “Despite rhetoric on resilience and survival, the remaining Iranian leadership is undeniably concerned about the costs of the conflict. The possibility of renewed military strikes against Iranian critical infrastructure and the destabilizing impacts these would inevitably have might be finally forcing Tehran’s hand.”
#IranConflict #OperationEpicFury #ProjectFreedom #StraitOfHormuz #USIranRelations #Diplomacy #MiddleEastSecurity #NuclearDeal #Geopolitics #PeaceTalks
Leave a Reply