Why Did 600 Americans Have to Die Before Tehran Bombing?
Senator Lindsey Graham addressed a rally in Germany in support of Iranian supporters (Image Graham on X)
Did Khamenei’s own miscalculations bring Iran’s deterrence to collapse? And does Operation Epic Fury have better prospects?
By NIRENDRA DEV
New Delhi, March 5, 2026 — Since the Islamic Republic’s founding in 1979, Iran has made targeting Americans a strategic priority. Yet as critics assail Donald Trump for the supposed lawlessness of the newly revived US-Iran military conflict, two questions demand answers: Is there a legitimate moral and legal case for war? And can the Iranian government under Khamenei be held responsible for more American deaths than any other adversary in the past 50 years?
The record is stark. More than 200 US Marines were killed by Hezbollah — Iran’s proxy — in the 1983 Beirut bombing. Over 600 American service members were killed by Iran-backed militias in Iraq. Under the principle of self-defence, the White House argues, military action against a regime responsible for so many American deaths is legally and morally justified.
Yet the Trump administration’s biggest failure has not been military — it has been rhetorical. As Gerard Baker wrote in the Wall Street Journal: Trump “had spent more time in the past few weeks explaining the case to the American people” — a case that, on its merits, is far stronger than his critics acknowledge.
The backdrop: Khamenei’s miscalculations
Iran’s road to this confrontation was paved by its own leadership’s decisions. Between January and October 2025, Tehran allegedly funnelled a billion dollars to Hezbollah — while paying its own citizens just $7 a month. Khamenei presided over a crackdown that allegedly killed 32,000 street protesters in just two days, a figure of astonishing brutality that made broader confrontation nearly inevitable.
As another Wall Street Journal analysis noted, the Iranian people had been pushed to the streets by economic collapse, “and the regime had no answer but gunfire.”
At the UN General Assembly in 2007, Iran had already declared its nuclear dispute “closed,” with then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowing to defy Security Council resolutions on uranium enrichment — even as a US National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 while continuing enrichment activities.
By 2025–26, pretending that the 12-day June war had changed nothing only made a sequel more likely. The collapse of Iran’s deterrence was not engineered in Washington. Khamenei’s own strategic errors brought it about.
Does Operation Epic Fury have better prospects?
Baker raises the defining question for the post-war moment: if regime change does not come now, what survives? A government that is leaderless, impoverished, isolated, and besieged. The strategic window, by that logic, may be narrow — and closing.
Whether Operation Epic Fury can translate military momentum into lasting political change remains the central, unanswered question of this conflict.
‘We Don’t Want to Fight for Israel’: Inside America’s Growing Revolt
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
