Operations Sindoor and Epic Fury The Statesman 12 May 2026
Article Read Time
Operations Sindoor and Epic Fury The Statesman 12 May 2026
The anniversary of Operation Sindoor was marked last week with social media comments as also press conferences by members of the government. The armed forces organized a special press interaction, chaired by those who coordinated the operation. Interestingly, there was no comment, even on social media, by members of the opposition, including the Congress. This could be because the government has exploited Sindoor to its advantage in all elections.
Both India and the US employed standoff weapons during their respective operations, India against Pakistan and the US-Israel combine against Iran, and the adversaries responded similarly. India had taken time and prepared for a counter, which Israel too had done to some extent, however, the US believed that Iran would not target its bases in neighbouring countries and hence was unprepared for what followed. Almost all its bases in the Middle East faced damages and losses which would take billions to repair.
Trump has repeatedly been claiming that aircraft were downed in Operation Sindoor, numbers increasing every time he spoke. US losses from Iranian strikes are yet to be disclosed, though everyone is aware that they were far greater in numbers, including those claimed to have been downed by friendly fire. US media and members of the public have, unlike the Indian opposition and media, behaved far more maturely and never questioned US aircraft losses. However, despite pleas by the Pentagon, US media shared details of damages to US assets.
Iran’s strategy included targeting infrastructure in neighbouring countries; an option Pakistan does not possess. Thus, it could only hit back against India, for which Indian forces were prepared. Both, India and the US targeted nuclear storage facilities and command and control centres, intending to force a closure in operations. Iran had prepared for the same, while Indian strikes shook Pakistan to the core, forcing it to seek a ceasefire.
Iran played its narrative based on an unprovoked attack to which it was compelled to retaliate. Its narrative building was partially successful since Trump kept changing US end states in his social media posts while his Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, gave contradictory statements on their politico-military objectives to the media. Pakistan’s narrative of not being responsible for Pahalgam failed, that of downing Indian aircraft, while hiding their losses, was initially successful. Their promoting Asim Munir to ‘failed marshal’ enhanced it further. With passage of time the world realized that damages caused by India were far beyond what Pak could sustain. Today, a year later, Pakistan struggles to justify its so-called claims of victory.
Iran was aware that its survival alone is a sign of victory over the US-Israel combine. Its ability to engage in talks indicated that two powerful nations could not achieve a surrender. It was benefitted by the fact that it does not border either of the two aggressors. In Pakistan’s case it was aware that if it crossed a threshold in retaliation, India could expand the war by launching ground forces, for which it was unprepared. In such a scenario, it would be compelled to redeploy forces from its western provinces, where insurgency and freedom struggles were gaining ground. Further, its economy could not sustain a prolonged conflict. Thus, it was compelled to keep its retaliation below India’s level of tolerance.
The US’s justification for the war was based on the premise that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. The world is aware that it was Israel which pushed the US into conflict. In India’s case it was retaliation to targeting civilians in a terrorist strike, solely based on religion. No nation in the world could ask India to display restraint as Israel had recently retaliated against Hamas for a similar terrorist strike, and was backed by the US. India was justified in its response, despite Pakistan’s plea that Pahalgam was a ‘false flag’ attack, while the US continues to seek support for its war against Iran.
Indians stood with the government when it launched Operation Sindoor. The public had been demanding a military response, post the attack in Pahalgam. The government had kept the pot boiling by mentioning that the armed forces would respond at a time and place of their own choosing. In the US, Trump and his administration are struggling to justify their attack on Iran. PM Modi gained in popularity, while Trump’s ratings dropped, making him the most unpopular President in US history.
India was far more successful against Pakistan than the US has been against Iran. India never sought a ceasefire, forcing Pakistan, a nuclear power, which regularly threatens nuclear retaliation, to seek peace. On the other hand, Trump claims that he has scaled down the war ‘on the request of Pakistan.’ Simultaneously, while India has declared a pause to Sindoor; the US continues with its deployment.
India refuses to open dialogue with Pakistan while Trump keeps displaying his desperation for talks with Iran. India refuses mediation, while the US is using Pakistan as a messenger. A clear sign of who gained and who lost.
Both India and the US had their politico-military objectives and end states determined prior to the conflict. The US was forced to amend its end state as war progressed, ultimately reverting to possibly what was achieved in the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), prior to Trump walking out of it in his first tenure. India stuck to its politico-military objectives throughout. It continues to hold the Indus Water Treaty in abeyance, a decision taken prior to Sindoor, while the US seeks to restore Hormuz Straits to its pre-war condition.
Operation Sindoor showcased Indian military products, demands for which have been rising across the globe. On the contrary, US military products had limited success against Iran’s retaliatory strikes. India has proved to the world that it possesses quality equipment.
India subdued a declared nuclear power, while the US with all its military might, fails to bring an emerging nuclear power to heel. This is because Indian armed forces had visualized different levels of possible retaliation and prepared for them.
India’s strategy was limited escalation, while the US employed overwhelming military power. At the end of the day, limited escalation, with select objectives was a better approach than excess military power without a clear end state. When accessed in totality, India gained in global standing while the US struggles to convince its own populace and allies on the Iranian conflict being a success.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army
I think there are fundamental differences that make both Operation Sindhoor and Operation Epic Fury bit like comparing chalk and cheese.
India’s operation was more of a skirmish with neighbour which was escalated because Pakistan decided to escalate it. USA showed high level of competence is executing a mission on the other side of the globe as far as military competence is concerned. They destroyed all major military assets, killed their leader etc. in merely few hours of the war. The American losses were expected as Iran was in existential crisis at that point and it was a full fledged war.
American jets were downed by friendly fire. Some lost to accidents and some were destroyed on ground. There is no evidence of any jets downed by running a sortie. The claim of a downed F35 is likely false and made up. The rescue operation was also probable fake rescue and was more of a ground operation that failed.
For last many years Pentagon has war-gamed these scenarios and it has known the outcome and their results were pretty on expected lines.
—
The operation Sindhoor however remains unclear because of lack of communication from Indian side. There was claim that many “terrorist sites” were hit. We have evidence that only one place was hit and someone was killed. All other hits could have been just empty buildings. We have clear confirmation that India also hit multiple Air bases and destroyed some Pakistani planes on ground.
India has confirmed its own losses but did not specify quantity. Based on Rafale upgrade orders looks like one Rafale was lost. Based on local reports perhaps 2-3 jets were lost in skies. We know what few people were killed during the strikes on the Indian Airbases but satellite images showed that key infra was not hit. India placed an order for S400 immediately lending credibility to the claim that India might have also lost an S400 in the process.
On international front, it is not clear that India had dominance. From our perspective it does feel like India had dominance but confirmed losses including those of prized jets like Rafale certainly makes it look like less of a clear victory.
But they are both fundamentally different kind of military operations and can not be compared.
The basic difference between the two countries is the ideology of India as, not on a dependent race for domination for *only* Nationalistic or individualistic gains.
The West & EU have always been suppressing the weaker nations or getting some within its fold, to counter the ones which are rise due to their own zeal to uplift its own masses and that includes Africa. Iran’s folly to support terrorist groups is clearly know and even Pakistan is on the threshold of breaking up. How far can USA save it, can be delayed- yet certain, unless it has ethical leaders at its helm.
China too is on a path only aligned to its own self interests- without even an iota of concern *for the regional / global balance*.
The base on which India rests today is *वासुदेव कटुंबकम्* i.e. peaceful living for all- not restricting the concept to its own self, yet ever ready to take on those who engineer destruction of Indians love for equality in deliverance of justice. The narrative building by evil forces is clear to our educated class of Gen Z.
India’s foreign policy is known since the NAM started and is on a strong footing. The internal conflicts are due to other State actors with deep state support to which unabated actions are in place, on a continuum