Another little Epic Fury: Trump warns as Iran says 'don't play with fire'

“Another little Epic Fury” refers to a possible repeat of the initial US military operation called “Epic Fury,” which the article says began the US-Iran war. Trump used the phrase at a campaign rally in Florida while discussing Iran’s response to Washington’s diplomatic demands.

The wording links diplomacy directly to military pressure. Trump said the United States might conduct another operation, “or they’ll agree.” He urged Iran to “get down to business,” while also suggesting that he doubted Tehran would do so.

The warning signals that Washington is presenting negotiation as Iran’s alternative to further conflict. The article does not specify the agreement’s terms. Trump also discussed US warships returning from the Middle East, suggesting their presence could reinforce the threat while Secretary of State Marco Rubio pursued diplomatic objectives.

Trump is demanding that Iran reach a diplomatic agreement with Washington, but the article does not explain what the agreement would contain. His public message was simple: Iran should “get down to business” and agree, rather than risk another US military operation.

The mechanism is an ultimatum. Trump said the United States might conduct “another little Epic Fury,” referring to the initial operation named in the article, “or they’ll agree.” This frames military action as the consequence of Tehran rejecting or failing to complete diplomacy.

The immediate reality is that the diplomatic objective remains undefined in the article. Trump also described Secretary of State Marco Rubio pursuing diplomatic objectives after US warships returned from the Middle East. The warning therefore combines negotiations with military pressure, while leaving the proposed settlement’s details unstated.

The United States is reducing staffing because officials reported threats from Iran and Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. An intelligence memo reportedly found increased efforts to target American diplomats and officials in the Middle East, with some plots reaching advanced stages.

The State Department reduced staffing at embassies in Jordan, Lebanon, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Officials told AP that the changes were linked to threats from Iran and the Houthis. The four embassies are operating under “restricted operations,” a status that already lowers staffing.

The embassies remain open, so the measure is not a full closure. Staff in those four countries are not required to leave, unlike non-essential US government employees and family members in Saudi Arabia. Officials are also concerned that Houthi attacks could expand beyond Saudi Arabia to other regional countries.

Undersea communication cables are physical cables laid across the seabed between countries and regions. In general, they carry digital data, including internet traffic, between networks. They are a largely unseen foundation of modern communications because so much international data travels through them.

The article highlights their importance through a stark figure: the International Telecommunication Union says undersea cables carry around 99 per cent of global internet traffic. That means damage could affect communications far beyond the place where a cable is cut, depending on available alternatives.

Iranian officials threatened to target this infrastructure if the United States and Israel resumed strikes. One official claimed Iran could access the cables and destroy them. However, the article also says the global effect could be limited because less than one per cent of international bandwidth passes through the Strait of Hormuz.

The article gives two different measurements of the cables’ importance. Around 99 per cent of global internet traffic travels through undersea cables, according to the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations agency.

The Strait of Hormuz is a much smaller part of that global system. Reuters, as cited in the article, reports that less than one per cent of international bandwidth passes through the strait. “Bandwidth” describes the capacity available for moving data, so this figure concerns the international data routes crossing that location.

The figures create an important distinction. Undersea cables are globally essential overall, but cables in one narrow area may carry a relatively small share of international capacity. Therefore, damage near Hormuz could still disrupt connected users and services, while its worldwide impact might be limited if other routes remain available.

If cables near the Strait of Hormuz were damaged, communications using those routes could be interrupted or degraded. Possible effects include slower connections, outages, or difficulty moving data between networks connected through the affected cables. The article does not identify particular countries or services that would be cut off.

The main mechanism is physical loss of a data route. Internet traffic normally depends on cables that carry information between regions. If one is damaged, network operators may try to use other routes, although the article does not detail how that process would work or how much spare capacity exists.

The global effect may be smaller than the threat sounds. Undersea cables carry around 99 per cent of global internet traffic, but Reuters reported that less than one per cent of international bandwidth passes through Hormuz. The impact could therefore be serious locally or regionally without becoming a worldwide internet shutdown.

The global internet is resilient because it uses many interconnected routes rather than relying on one cable alone. In general, network operators can redirect traffic through other cables or paths when a link fails. This can preserve service, though performance may change.

The article shows both sides of that system. Undersea cables carry around 99 per cent of global internet traffic, proving their central role. Yet less than one per cent of international bandwidth passes through the Strait of Hormuz, so damage there may have limited worldwide consequences if other routes can carry the traffic.

Resilience is not unlimited. Areas depending heavily on a small number of cables could face outages or slower communications after damage. The article does not state how much spare capacity exists. Multiple attacks, limited alternatives, or further disruption could therefore make the effects wider and more difficult to contain.