“Epic Fury” Operation: The End of Deterrence as We Know It
As the “Epic Fury” operation strikes Iran since February 28, 2026, the increase in armed conflicts marks the end of a certain idea of deterrence. From Ukraine to Gaza, from the Caucasus to the Middle East, something has gone wrong in the security architecture that prevented the return of conquest wars since 1945. Not a Third World War like the first two, but something potentially more insidious: a series of conflicts that no one seems able to contain.
Since 1945 and the first use of nuclear explosives, a conviction has structured Western strategic thought: the existence of these “absolute weapons” makes any conquest war between great powers unthinkable, making the territory of nuclear-armed states inviolable. These states could only confront each other indirectly, in limited wars, the intensity of which would never reach the hyperbolic violence of the first two world conflicts.
A Shifting Threshold
The scope of what can be done under the “nuclear umbrella” without causing its collapse has significantly increased. The war in Ukraine showed that a high-intensity conventional conflict, pursuing explicit territorial annexation goals, could unfold without nuclear threat activation by the aggressor to protect gains or by states supporting Ukrainian defense to end it.
The concept of a nuclear “threshold,” theorized in 1960, assumed a precise line beyond which atomic warfare became certain. Since the war in Ukraine, this notion can no longer be strictly understood. In reality, behaviors obey more complex mechanisms: there is a zone of uncertainty, an intermediate space where an infinite number of hostile acts remain possible without automatically leading to ultimate escalation.
Related Read | Nuclear Arms Race: Again?
In other words, there is an increase in the threshold at which the behavior of some actors becomes intolerable. And it is precisely this increase that opens a window of opportunity for “revisionist” powers, meaning those wishing to change the rules of the system in their favor.
The Return of Conquest Wars
What we are witnessing is the most serious risk: not a deliberately declared Third World War by a power or group of powers, leading to total atomic war, but a multiplication of simultaneous conventional conflicts exhausting American response capabilities and will, which could be called a “world war under the threshold” (not initially triggering nuclear weapon use).
In the last five years, the most significant ruptures have been caused by nuclear powers themselves. Russia attempted to subdue Ukraine through a lightning offensive and formally annex five provinces before engaging in a protracted war with lasting consequences for the European order. Israel, a undeclared nuclear power, responded to the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, with unprecedented military operations in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, against the Houthis in Yemen, and finally against Iran, following its doctrine of “disproportionate response.” Additionally, far from being bystanders to the system’s deregulation, the United States have become one of the agents: the operation in Iran was launched without UN mandate or consultation of Congress and Washington openly threatens NATO members, undermining the institutions it once helped build.
Other conflicts, without nuclear arsenal involvement, have been launched with correlation to these conflicts. In September 2020, Azerbaijan launched its first successful offensive on Armenia, gradually leading to the disappearance of the Republic of Artsakh and the exile of over 100,000 Armenians, without international intervention to prevent this exodus.
It is clear that the return of localized wars was not accidental but a significant trend, adding to insurgency struggles of previous decades. These wars, while not leading to major border changes in all cases, pose challenges that the United States and its strategic competitors are struggling to manage simultaneously.
