It’s been a real hoot watching commentators and pundits from both sides of the fence tying themselves in knots trying to analyse/applaud/abhor what’s happening in the Middle East. And yet, geopolitically, it’s not that complicated. The USA and Israel are engaged in a major war against a militarily powerful and determined rogue state.  It is the most significant military action by the West in well over a decade. You might argue that it’s an existential war for the West, one that has been in the making for nearly 50 years. It will not be done in two or three weeks, nor without significant cost, as some commentators seem to expect.

At the tactical, and even strategic level, though, the conduct of wars is not uncomplicated. The enemy rarely does what you expect or want him to do. So, this is a convenient stick with which to beat Trump. Here’s a good example. A week into the operation, a Seven newsreader announced, ‘Trump admits war not going to plan.’ ‘Not going to plan’ suggests setbacks. But the story that followed did not highlight any setbacks but a remark by Trump that he did not expect Iran to hit neighbouring Arab nations. I doubt Trump would consider that a setback.

Despite the obtuseness of commentators suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, there are four main aims of this war:  to eliminate the nuclear threat, to destroy Iran’s missile and drone capability, to degrade its ability to promote and fund proxy terrorist groups and, if possible, to replace the existing regime. Some commentators seem to believe these are mutually exclusive.  In fact, they are complementary. If the US and Israel fail to achieve regime change, that does not invalidate the other three.

Regime change, in this case, is complicated by the fact that the major partner, the USA, is constrained from putting boots on the ground. That’s a major disadvantage. It has never been achieved without boots on the ground (except for Japan), and even then, has often failed. In fact, President Trump made it crystal clear, right at the beginning of this operation, that regime change, ultimately, is in the hands of the Iranian people.  It may not happen in the timeframe of Operation Epic Fury. Regime change would be great for the Iranian people. Pretty good for Israel.  And, realistically, just a ‘nice to have’ for the USA and the West in general.  As long as Iran is constrained militarily.

Which brings me to the military objectives. Here we have an evil regime that has been allowed to fester under the vaunted ‘international rules-based order’ for half a century. It was a heartbeat away from developing a nuclear bomb. It had a huge arsenal of ballistic missiles and drones. And a vast network of terrorist proxies to do its dirty work. It has, as its stated national aspiration, the elimination of both Israel and the USA.

Very few serious commentators now question the justification for this war, so they are forced to traduce the Orange Man for his conduct of it.

It is clear that, despite Trump’s rhetoric, the military war is not yet won. It will be won when a) the US can force Iran to clear the Strait of Hormuz rather than be constrained to merely persuade it to, and b) when it is clear that Iran no longer has the capability to launch long-range missile strikes.

This is not a police action. It is an all-out war, one that has been in the making for decades and which has been facilitated by the uselessness of the UN and the vacillation of previous US administrations. Like all wars it will not go according to plan. War is a messy business, and this one has only been going for less than a month. It will impose hardship and cost on the West, and it will cost lives, as usual, mostly American lives. But that is a price that we all, inevitably, would be forced to pay if Trump and Israel had not acted now.   Operation Epic Fury has cost Trump the services of Joe Kent, Director of the US National Counterterrorism Centre, who resigned because he claimed there was no immediate threat to the US from Iran, ignoring the fact that Iran has presented an actual and ongoing threat to Israel, a major US ally, for at least three decades. That puts Kent among the ‘kick the can down the road rules based order’ set who have brought us to this point. Trump is well rid of him.  Regardless of the ‘imminence’ of the nuclear threat, this is a worthwhile endeavour for all the other reasons.

Paul Kelly recently queried ‘Trump as wartime president – is he fit for purpose?’  Which leads me to ask, who else have you got in mind, Paul? Trump now finds himself largely alone apart from Netanyahu. And Greg Sheridan in the Australian, in conceding that this is a just war, adds: ‘Of course, if waged with sufficient incompetence or confusion, as Trump exhibits, that would affect questions of morality.’

Trump just can’t win with these quibblers.  Iran has already been significantly degraded – no one else has been willing or able to do that – and the cost in US lives has been miniscule.

To paraphrase President Trump, he himself is no Winston Churchill, but remember even Winnie had his Dardanelles, Greece and Singapore missteps. I repeat, in war, things do not always go according to plan.  Trump has, and will, make mistakes.

Trump is not perfect, and he may be temperamentally unsuited as a long-term wartime leader – he is instinctively pro-peace.  He came to power promising to Make America Great Again and to put America first. That led many establishment and mainstream media figures to assume – and to loudly lament at the time – that he would be an isolationist President. But he has proved them wrong. They hate that. Nonetheless he is caught between a rock and a hard place.  Victory hasn’t been as swift or decisive as he had hoped. He will want to withdraw as soon as he can – no forever wars. That could reasonably be when Hormuz is secure. That should not be beyond the capability of a force as powerful as the US, particularly if allied nations now come on board.

However, whatever you may think about President Trump, I have not heard one commentator make the blindingly obvious point that, in Operation Epic Fury, he has acted both courageously and, more to the point, selflessly. No one gives him credit for that. It doesn’t fit the TDS narrative, but he gains nothing personally from Operation Epic Fury. It is all downside for him. He has (possibly) alienated a large portion of his base. He could have settled with vigorously prosecuting his domestic agenda and left international affairs to the ‘rules based order’, like his Democrat predecessors. Then he would have had a good chance in the mid-terms to maintain control of at least one House, maybe both. He could then have looked forward to a productive second half of his second term.

Instead, there is a good chance he will finish out his term as a lame duck President, something that all his predecessors have striven mightily to avoid. Trump seems to have accepted that possibility for the greater global good. If he prevails in Iran, that could be a game changer domestically. But, if the Republicans do lose the midterms, Trump could spend the final two years of his Presidency just playing golf.  His positive legacy to the world will already have been well and truly established.