As US military operation names go, Epic Fury marks a break from tradition.
The title for the ongoing American strikes on Iran, "is unusual for its edginess," Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International studies told RFE/RL. "Operations more commonly have names that will appeal to a wide audience, like Iraqi Freedom," he added, referencing the official name for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The former US Marine Colonel says the name for the war on Iran would have been selected from a list of options generated by military staffers "based on their sense of what [US defense chief Pete Hegseth], wanted to convey."
During planning for previous US military operations, insiders have described lists "three pages long" of potential two-word names that leadership selected from.
A fleet of US Naval Vessels led by the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea on February 6, shortly before Operation Epic Fury was launched.
James Dawes, the author of a book on the language of war, agrees that the name is a departure from previous US codenames, which he says, "often emphasized moral purpose and discipline," such as Enduring Freedom, the designation for the 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan.
Epic Fury, he says, "differs even from this administration's earlier names that evoked violent action, like Midnight Hammer or Southern Spear." Epic Fury, by contrast, "names an extreme emotional state, an anger that resists control," Dawes told RFE/RL.
In a 1995 paper written by Gregory Sieminski, a US Army officer, codenames for military operations are described as "the first – and quite possibly the decisive – bullet to be fired" in a conflict, due to their impact on public opinion.
Operation names, Sieminski wrote, have several potential audiences. As well as the obvious morale boost for US troops and public that an apt title can provide, some names target the enemy. A major exercise held in Saudi Arabia before the 1991 Gulf War was dubbed "Imminent Thunder," a name Sieminski says was "clearly designed to intimidate the Iraqis."
A scene in northern France in the aftermath of Germany's Operation Alberich, one of the first military actions to be given a codename. The plan was named after a powerful dwarf from German folklore.
The practice of giving military operations codenames began in World War I, when German commanders planning complex sequences of operations started giving military actions memorable and sometimes inspiring names.
From the 1920s, the US began naming secret operations after the colors that paper plans were given. Generic titles such as "Plan Orange" streamlined communication without revealing clues to the contents of each scheme.
During World War II, the Nazi leadership made the mistake of giving operations codenames that hinted at real world details. Chatter about Adolf Hitler's "Operation Sealion," was intercepted by the British, helping them determine that Germany planned an amphibious invasion of the British Isles.
Winston Churchill took a personal interest in operation names. The British wartime leader instructed military staff not to choose titles that "imply a boastful or overconfident sentiment," or that had a "frivolous character."
Following World War II, the US began declassifying the names of its operations for public consumption, a decision that came with a significant public relations risks. The US-led United Nations force in Korea faced criticism over the naming of "Operation Killer," a counter offensive during the 1950-53 Korean War which diplomats complained soured relations with China at the time. During the Vietnam War, then-US President Lyndon Johnson personally intervened to change the name of a major offensive initially called Operation Masher to the less gruesome-sounding Operation White Wing.
An US armored vehicle in Panama during the 1989-90 American invasion of the country dubbed Operation Just Cause.
Following the Masher and Killer controversies, guidelines were introduced in the 1970s which instructed staff to avoid nicknames that were "offensive to good taste." The paper further stipulates that US military operations be named with two words, and to avoid commercial trademarks or words that "express a degree of bellicosity inconsistent with traditional American ideals."
Sieminski's 1995 paper advises the military chooses names that are meaningful and memorable, while recommending against attempts to train personnel in creating operational nicknames. Such a delicate semantic task he concludes, "is an art, rather than a science."