When Operation Epic Fury commenced nearly two months ago, Washington’s self-proclaimed foreign policy experts issued dire warnings. They predicted a cascade of unintended and alarmingly negative secondary consequences.

The prevailing consensus among these analysts was that the Trump administration, from the President downwards, lacked the long-term strategic planning to avert these predicted pitfalls. Specifically, they foresaw regional countries shifting allegiance from the U.S. towards China, an escalating war spearheaded by Iran’s proxies, and devastating surges in global energy prices. Adding to their shock, these experts claimed the President had not consulted NATO allies before initiating the operation, thereby depriving America of crucial support.

The Experts’ Scorecard: A Reality Check

While Epic Fury is far from over and its ultimate outcomes remain fluid, we now possess sufficient perspective to evaluate whether these grim prognoses have materialized. To date, the experts’ scorecard is notably poor.

China’s Absence and Shifting Alliances

First and foremost, China has been conspicuously absent from the conflict. It has neither projected power into the region to safeguard its vital energy imports from the Gulf nor bolstered its regional influence. On the contrary, America’s partners in the Middle East, angered by Iran’s ill-advised attacks on its neighbors, have drawn closer together – and moved towards the U.S., not to mention Israel. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has already lost Venezuela as a petro-vassal nation this year; now it faces the potential loss of Iran as well.

The Failed “Ring of Fire”

The much-vaunted “ring of fire” around Israel, supposedly coordinated by Iran’s terrorist proxies such as the Houthis, Hamas, the Shiite militias in Iraq, and Hezbollah, has failed to materialize. The first three groups have remained largely quiet, while the Jewish state has gone on the offensive against Hezbollah. Concurrently, Israel has engaged in historic diplomacy with Lebanon to secure a ceasefire, with prospects of a normalization deal on the horizon. Iran and its proxies find themselves on the outside looking in on this evolving process, further diminishing their relevance.

Energy Prices: Crisis Averted

Regarding energy prices, while Iran’s threats to constrict global energy supplies through its claimed control of the Strait of Hormuz did cause some price increases, predictions of $200-a-barrel oil have not been realized. While prices for products like gasoline and jet fuel are uncomfortably high, a full-blown energy crisis has been averted thus far.

This outcome is partly due to a successful regional pivot to pipelines bypassing the Strait, notably by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Another significant factor is burgeoning U.S. production of oil and natural gas, both of which hit record highs during Epic Fury.

Although this increased production hasn’t entirely offset the restriction of exports from the Gulf, it has absorbed some of the shock to the U.S. economy that such events would historically cause. American natural gas production, in particular, has acted as a critical buffer, keeping domestic prices stable even as supply was restricted and prices soared in Europe and Asia.

“Old Europe’s” Impotence Exposed

Finally, the withholding of support from what Donald Rumsfeld might have termed “old Europe” has proven immaterial – primarily because these countries have little to provide. After their initial fit of pique, Brussels, Paris, London, and Madrid greeted Epic Fury with strongly worded statements and performative Zoom calls to demonstrate solidarity. These were followed by pledges to secure Hormuz, on which they are highly dependent, but only after the real fighting had concluded. Their impotence is embarrassing, but its exposure could lead to difficult yet necessary discussions about the commitment of Europe’s largest economies to their own defense.

In more positive news, European NATO members have not been monolithic. “New Europe” countries such as the Baltics, Scandinavian nations, Poland, and Romania have been supportive of the United States. This support likely stems from their understanding that while The New York Times was technically mistaken in calling the alliance the “North American Treaty Organization,” it was substantively correct that without America, NATO would cease to exist. These nations appear more concerned with protecting their security and economic ties with the U.S. than with posturing about diminishing capabilities.