Epic Fury demonstrated immense reach of American power, but also inherent complications of prolonged coercive warfare. Sindoor displayed effectiveness of India’s synchronised campaign
The US-declared Operation Epic Fury ‘concluded’ on May 6, 2026, exactly one year after India launched Operation Sindoor against terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Both operations relied on precision strike capability, multi-domain coordination and strategic signalling. Yet beyond these broad similarities, the two campaigns differed fundamentally in conception, execution and outcomes.
Operation Epic Fury was conceived as a large-scale coercive campaign jointly executed by the United States and Israel against Iran. Its objectives evolved over time and ultimately became expansive leading to campaign that lasted 38 days and involved more than 2,000 strikes using stealth bombers, carrier aviation, cruise missiles and cyber-electronic warfare assets.
Operation Sindoor had objectives that were clearly defined and politically calibrated from the outset: strike identified terror infrastructure linked to cross-border terrorism, impose military costs for proxy warfare and establish that terrorist attacks would invite punitive conventional retaliation despite Pakistan’s nuclear posture. The operation lasted 88 hours. The distinction is important because clarity of objectives often determines operational coherence.
Epic Fury suffered from the classic challenge that confronts prolonged coercive campaigns: the gradual expansion of military aims. What began as a punitive strike evolved into a broader effort to systematically degrade Iran’s strategic capability. This introduced multiple operational burdens simultaneously i.e. suppression of integrated air defences, naval warfare in the Gulf, industrial targeting, missile interception and escalation management across several theatres. Tactical success was undeniable, but the campaign increasingly carried the characteristics of attritional warfare despite the sophistication of the platforms employed.
Operation Sindoor avoided precisely this trap. India deliberately limited the operational envelope. In its opening phase, no Pakistani military facilities were targeted. The focus remained on nine identified terror facilities, struck with stand-off precision weapons launched from within Indian airspace. The political messaging, military targeting and escalation ladder remained aligned throughout the operation. This coherence allowed India to maintain strategic control even while escalating militarily after Pakistan’s retaliation.
Operational execution further highlights the contrast. Epic Fury depended upon sustained force projection over several weeks. Its success relied on maintaining uninterrupted air superiority, carrier group survivability, logistics support and continuous suppression of Iranian missile and drone retaliation. Even with overwhelming American technological dominance, the campaign exposed the complexity of modern long-duration operations where military success must constantly be balanced against escalation risks, coalition management and political fatigue.
Sindoor, by contrast, achieved compression of the operational cycle. India integrated airpower, electronic warfare, loitering munitions, naval deployment and air defence into a tightly synchronised sequence executed within hours. Rafales, Su-30s, Mirage 2000s and MiG-29s delivered SCALP-EG, Spice, Rampage and Hammer precision munitions while Harop and Harpy systems suppressed Pakistani radar coverage. Simultaneously, the Indian Navy positioned a carrier battle group and submarines off Karachi, creating immediate maritime pressure. The speed of execution denied Pakistan the ability to regain operational initiative.
When Pakistan launched Operation Bunyan-Um-Marsoos, India escalated selectively by targeting 11 Pakistani airbases, the escalation was forceful but controlled. Within hours, Pakistan’s DGMO requested talks. The operational message was not destruction but the demonstration of escalation dominance below the nuclear threshold.
Another distinction lay in the relationship between technology and integration. During Epic Fury, Iran despite suffering severe losses, retained the ability through much of the campaign to launch retaliatory missile and drone attacks. This underscored a recurring lesson in modern warfare: advanced technology does not automatically translate into immediate operational paralysis of the adversary, especially in large territorial theatres with dispersed military infrastructure.
Pakistan faced a different problem during Sindoor. Much of the advanced capability deployed during the confrontation including PL-15E missiles, HQ-series air defences, CH-4 drones and satellite-enabled targeting support was sourced from China. Yet these systems struggled against India’s integrated command-and-control architecture and layered air defence network.
Post Sindoor, Pakistan has taken serious efforts to correct these weaknesses. Air assets have reportedly been dispersed more effectively, hardened shelters expanded and integration with Chinese ISR and satellite support deepened with greater emphasis on drone warfare, electronic warfare and survivable command networks. Pakistan’s military has clearly recognised that the next confrontation cannot rely solely on nuclear signalling and imported platforms.
Epic Fury demonstrated the immense reach of American military power, but also the inherent complications of prolonged coercive warfare against a large regional adversary. Sindoor demonstrated the effectiveness of India’s limited, tightly defined and politically synchronised military operations that delivered a punitive, deep, multi-domain strike inside a nuclear-armed neighbour and control of the escalation ladder on its own terms. The lesson on this anniversary is that the cost calculus vis-a-vis Pakistan has been rewritten and sustaining it is now a matter of preparedness, not rhetoric.
(Brigadier (Retd) Anil John Alfred Pereira is a veteran from Goa, who served the nation with distinction for 32 years.)