By Suresh Unnithan & Nanditha Subhadra
With Operation Epic Fury—the joint U.S.-Israel military campaign against Iran—entering its fourth week, President Donald Trump is signalling a potential rapid wind-down of American association. Reports from knowledgeable sources and his own statements suggest the U.S. could pull back in less than a week, allowing for a safe, face-saving exit from what critics increasingly describe as a conflict driven more by Israeli priorities than American interests. The realization has dawned late that the war, while delivering heavy blows to Iran’s military, has exacted a staggering financial toll on the United States—billions of dollars in munitions, operations, and economic ripple effects—prompting urgent scrutiny at home.
Launched on February 28, 2026, Operation Epic Fury aimed to obliterate Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, annihilate its navy, sever support for terrorist proxies, prevent nuclear weapon acquisition, and degrade the regime’s ability to fund regional militias. U.S. and Israeli forces have struck over 7,000 targets, sunk much of Iran’s naval fleet, flattened air defences, and eliminated key leadership figures, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in some accounts. Trump has repeatedly declared Iran’s air force and navy “gone,” with the Pentagon confirming massive degradation of Iranian combat capabilities.
Yet the campaign’s intensity has come at an enormous price. The Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimated the first 100 hours at $3.7 billion (nearly $900 million per day), driven largely by high-expenditure munitions like interceptors and precision strikes. By day six, Pentagon briefings to Congress pegged costs at over $11.3 billion, with CSIS projections reaching $12.7 billion when including operations and replacements—and climbing toward $16.5 billion by day twelve. Daily expenses have hovered at $1 billion or more in the early phases, depleting U.S. stockpiles and raising concerns about readiness for other global contingencies.
Domestic opposition has mounted rapidly. Critics, including some within Trump’s base, have branded it a “Netanyahu War,” arguing the U.S. is footing the bill for Israeli security objectives while American taxpayers bear the burden. Soaring oil prices from disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have fueled inflation fears, stock market plunges, and calls to redirect funds toward domestic priorities. The conflict has been described as far costlier than anticipated, with no clear path to regime change and mounting risks of broader entanglement.
Amid this backdrop, Trump posted on Truth Social on March 21: “We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran.” He outlined five core goals—full degradation of missiles and production capacity, destruction of the navy, prevention of nuclear capability, protection of allies, and ending proxy support—emphasizing the U.S. is “very close” to achieving them. Earlier that day, he told reporters he was not pursuing a ceasefire, stating, “You don’t do a ceasefire when you’re literally obliterating the other side.”
This mixed messaging—continued tough rhetoric alongside explicit talk of winding down—has led analysts to view it as cover for a calculated off-ramp. Despite deploying additional Marines, amphibious ships, and warships to the region, Trump has hinted the campaign could conclude far sooner than the initial four-to-six-week estimate. Some aides discuss shifting to sanctions, deterrence, and letting regional partners “police” the Strait of Hormuz once military objectives are met. The Treasury has already eased certain Iranian oil sanctions to ease global supply pressures.
Trump’s approach echoes patterns from his first term, where he pursued structured exits from inherited conflicts like Afghanistan (via the 2020 Doha Agreement with the Taliban) and abrupt drawdowns in Syria (2018 and 2019 pullbacks after declaring ISIS defeated). Those efforts prioritized troop reductions and “victory” declarations over indefinite commitments, though they drew criticism for creating vacuums, alienating allies, and risking instability. In Afghanistan, the fixed timeline and concessions contributed to the Taliban’s swift return post-2021; in Syria, sudden shifts damaged credibility with Kurdish partners and allowed adversaries like Russia and Iran to gain ground.
Observers see parallels here: Trump, who campaigned against “endless wars,” faces pressure from economic fallout, congressional funding concerns, and public fatigue. Seasoned experts speculate the wind-down could accelerate within days once remaining high-value targets are neutralized, allowing Trump to claim decisive success without prolonged occupation or regime-change quagmire.
As strikes continue and Iran threatens retaliation, the coming week may prove pivotal. If Trump pulls the trigger on withdrawal, it could mark a swift end to Epic Fury—declaring mission accomplished while minimizing further U.S. exposure. The signals point to an exit that prioritizes a “safe” disengagement over indefinite entanglement, reflecting lessons from past drawdowns and the sobering reality of the war’s mounting costs. Whether this proves the off-ramp the region—and America—needs remains to be seen.
