A longtime critic of President Donald Trump has offered rare praise for the administration’s recent military operation targeting Iran’s leadership, arguing the strikes mark a turning point for U.S. deterrence on the global stage, as reported by Fox News.

Washington Post columnist George Will, who has frequently criticized President Trump and previously voted for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in recent presidential elections, published a column supporting the administration’s actions during the military campaign known as Operation Epic Fury.

Image Credit: White House

Will titled the column “At last, the credibility of U.S. deterrence is being restored,” writing that the operation signaled a shift in how the United States projects power internationally.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

“The perhaps 30,000 protesters who perished in Iran’s streets in early January did not die in vain,” Will wrote.

Operation Epic Fury was carried out jointly by the United States and Israel and targeted Iranian leadership and military infrastructure.

The strikes reportedly resulted in the elimination of senior figures within the Iranian regime, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Will described the military campaign as a carefully coordinated operation built on intelligence and precision targeting.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

“Precision munitions, directed by spectacular intelligence, enabled a decapitation strategy,” Will wrote.

According to Will, the action represented an effort to restore an element of American foreign policy that he believes had eroded over time.

“The U.S. action for regime change in Iran is not sufficient to produce regional tranquility. It is, however, a necessity for beginning to reestablish a precondition for a more peaceable world: the credibility of U.S. deterrence,” Will wrote.

Operation Epic Fury began in late February 2026 when U.S. and Israeli forces launched coordinated air and missile strikes against multiple locations inside Iran.

Military targets included command centers, missile infrastructure, and facilities connected to Iran’s defense and nuclear capabilities as part of a broader effort to weaken the regime’s military power.

The campaign has drawn international attention as the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran continues to unfold. U.S. officials have said the objective includes eliminating missile threats and preventing Iran from advancing its nuclear capabilities.

In his column, Will also pointed to several historical moments that he argued weakened America’s credibility in the eyes of allies and adversaries.

He cited the final helicopter leaving the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon in 1975 as one such moment.

Will also referenced former President Barack Obama’s “red line” warning regarding chemical weapons in Syria, which was crossed in 2013, as well as the 2021 withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan during the Biden administration.

Will argued that those events contributed to a perception that the United States had become less willing to enforce its warnings or commitments abroad.

“Today, Vladimir Putin is watching Venezuela, Iran (a source of some of Putin’s drones), and soon, perhaps, Cuba, join Syria as vanished clients.

The swiftness of their downfall illustrates the hollowness of Russia’s claim to be a formidable global actor,” Will wrote.

Will also addressed critics who have described the military operation as a “war of choice,” rejecting that characterization.

“Some say that U.S. involvement in Iran constitutes a ‘war of choice.’ That too casually bandied phrase rarely fits untidy reality,” he wrote.

The military campaign has triggered debate among policymakers, analysts, and media commentators about the long-term consequences of the strikes.

Will’s column stands out as a notable endorsement of the operation from a commentator who has been one of President Trump’s most consistent critics in the legacy media.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.