President Donald Trump has issued a stark ultimatum to Iran, threatening to destroy much of the country's civilian infrastructure if it does not agree to a deal by Tuesday evening in the United States. Trump escalated his warnings over two days, vowing on Monday to demolish "every bridge" and power station in Iran within four hours if no agreement is reached by 8:00 pm EST (midnight GMT Wednesday). The following morning, he intensified the rhetoric, warning that "a whole civilisation will die" if Iran fails to comply by the deadline.
This unprecedented threat from a sitting US president has raised alarm among military experts, international law specialists, and analysts. Many warn that the scale of destruction Trump has threatened would be difficult, if not impossible, to carry out in such a short time frame, and that targeting civilian infrastructure could amount to war crimes. Some experts have even suggested that Trump's comments about wiping out an entire civilization might be viewed as incitement to genocide. Trump, however, dismissed these concerns during a press conference on Monday.
From a military standpoint, experts argue that the US does not possess the capability to destroy every bridge and power installation across Iran in just a few hours. Iran's landmass is roughly one-third the size of the continental United States, and while the US intelligence community likely knows the locations of Iran's major nuclear and industrial facilities, it would be a monumental challenge to identify and strike thousands of other targets swiftly. A former senior US defense official, speaking anonymously, described the threat as a "herculean task" and questioned whether it would achieve the desired strategic impact. The official suggested that Trump appears to be searching for increasingly dramatic rhetoric to strengthen the US position in the conflict.
While wiping out every bridge is impractical, a large-scale strike targeting Iran's power sector is more feasible. Most of Iran's power plants and refineries are concentrated in three coastal provinces-Bushehr, Khuzestan, and Hormozgan-along the Persian Gulf. Disrupting the infrastructure in these regions could significantly impair the Iranian regime's access to oil revenue and its control over the Persian Gulf and the vital Strait of Hormuz. Miad Maleki, a former senior US Treasury official who led sanctions against Iran, highlighted the importance of these provinces and said that attacking them could deal a severe blow to the regime's economic lifelines.
In the midst of these threats, diplomatic efforts are still underway. On Tuesday afternoon, Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif appealed to President Trump to extend the deadline by two weeks to allow additional time for diplomacy. Sharif also urged Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz during this period as a goodwill gesture. Pakistan has emerged as a key intermediary between the US and Iran, and Islamabad has been mentioned as a possible venue for high-level talks should both sides approach a ceasefire agreement.
The White House acknowledged Pakistan's request, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirming that Trump had been informed of the proposal and that a response would be forthcoming. Trump himself told Fox News on Tuesday that negotiations with Iran were ongoing and described them as "heated."
Meanwhile, Vice-President JD Vance confirmed that the US had carried out airstrikes on military targets on Kharg Island, a strategic location in the Persian Gulf that handles about 90% of Iran's oil exports. Speaking from Budapest, Vance emphasized that these strikes did not signify a shift in Trump's overall strategy but served as a warning that the US had more powerful tools at its disposal. He said the president could decide to escalate the campaign if Iran did not change its behavior, stressing the US's capability to inflict "much greater pain" on Iran's economy. The White House was quick to deny any suggestion that Vance's comments implied a potential nuclear strike.
Iranian state media reported further US-Israeli airstrikes on civilian infrastructure, citing an attack on a bridge in the city of Qom on Tuesday. This followed last week's bombing of Iran's largest bridge, which Trump publicly acknowledged. These strikes on civilian targets have intensified concerns about the humanitarian consequences of the conflict.
Despite the threats and military actions, it remains uncertain whether escalating attacks on Iran's infrastructure will bring Tehran to the negotiating table. Direct talks between US and Iranian officials reportedly took place on Tuesday after weeks of indirect discussions failed to bridge the divide. However, the two sides remain far apart on critical issues such as the future of Iran's oil industry, its nuclear program, and control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump has assigned his special envoy Steve Witkoff, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Vice-President Vance to lead the negotiations. A US official, speaking anonymously, indicated that Witkoff and Kushner handle the day-to-day diplomatic efforts, with Vance stepping in only if a deal appears imminent. This suggests a tiered approach to diplomacy, with the vice-president serving as a senior-level negotiator when necessary.
Analysts caution that the US strategy may not yield the desired results. Trump may be relying on the assumption that widespread blackouts and infrastructure damage will pressure the Iranian population to push their government toward a deal. However, many Iranians were already accustomed to frequent power outages before the war began in late February, due to a chronically dysfunctional energy sector. Maleki noted that additional blackouts may not serve as an effective incentive for Iran's leadership to negotiate, as these hardships are not solely wartime phenomena but rather ongoing issues within the country.
Moreover, attacking Iran's power grid could complicate another major US objective: reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has disrupted most oil tanker traffic through this crucial waterway, causing turmoil in global oil markets and driving prices higher. Any further escalation risks exacerbating regional instability and economic uncertainty.
Jason Campbell, a former Department of Defense official who served under both Biden and Trump administrations and now a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, said that Trump has yet to make a convincing case that escalating military pressure will achieve US aims. Nearly six weeks into the conflict, Iran's regime appears resilient and capable of withstanding significant suffering without conceding to US demands. Campbell described Iran's leadership as engaged in an existential battle, one that threatens not only the country but the regime's survival itself.
In summary, President Trump's threats to destroy Iran's civilian infrastructure represent a dramatic escalation in the conflict, but experts question the feasibility and effectiveness of such actions. Military analysts underscore the logistical challenges of the proposed strikes, while legal experts warn of potential violations of international law. Diplomatic efforts continue, with Pakistan playing a mediating role and direct talks occurring despite deep divisions. The situation remains volatile, with the risk that further attacks could have serious humanitarian and geopolitical consequences without guaranteeing a swift resolution.