.png)
U.S. President Donald Trump is facing mounting criticism over his handling of the escalating conflict with Iran, as he cycles through a series of increasingly forceful options in an effort to resolve tensions surrounding the strategic Strait of Hormuz.
Over the course of roughly a week, AP cited that Trump’s approach has shifted from proposals for diplomatic coordination to secure the vital maritime corridor, to sanctions adjustments, and now to a direct ultimatum threatening strikes on Iranian civilian energy infrastructure if the strait is not reopened within 48 hours.
His latest warning included a pledge to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants.
The Strait of Hormuz remains a critical artery for global oil and gas transport, and the uncertainty surrounding its security has contributed to volatility in energy markets, with rising prices adding pressure on consumers and policymakers.
Trump and his allies maintain that contingency plans were always in place in the event Iran attempted to block the strait.
However, critics argue that the administration’s shifting posture reflects a lack of coherent strategy and an absence of a clear exit plan following the initiation of military confrontation.
Democratic lawmakers have been among the most vocal in their criticism. Senator Ed Markey said, “Trump has no plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, so he is threatening to attack Iran’s civil power plants,” adding: “This would be a war crime.”
Another senator, Chris Murphy, accused the administration of losing control of the situation, stating, “He’s lost control of the war and he is panicking,” in response to Trump’s recent statements.
Within the Republican Party, concerns have also emerged over the rapid shifts in policy direction. Senator Thom Tillis warned against inconsistent expectations placed on international partners, noting, “You can’t all of a sudden walk away after you’ve kind of created the event and expect other people to pick it up.”
In parallel with military signalling, the administration has explored diplomatic and economic measures.
A proposal to assemble an international coalition to patrol the Strait of Hormuz was rejected by allies, after which Washington indicated it could proceed independently before later suggesting that other countries may need to assume responsibility.
At one point, officials even implied that the situation might resolve without direct intervention.
The US Treasury has also taken steps to ease pressure on energy markets by lifting sanctions on certain Iranian oil transactions for the first time in decades, aiming to increase global supply. However, questions remain over the extent to which this will influence retail fuel prices or limit Iran’s ability to benefit from renewed exports.
The president’s ultimatum, issued while in Florida, marked a notable escalation in tone and scope. Unlike earlier messaging focused on military assets such as Iran’s air force and missile capabilities, the latest threat specifically targets civilian energy infrastructure that underpins essential services including hospitals and residential supply.
Legal experts have raised serious concerns about the implications of such action. Geoffrey Corn said the messaging appeared to lack the legal scrutiny typically required for decisions involving strikes on civilian infrastructure, describing it as “ready, fire, aim,” and adding, “He overestimated his ability to control the events once he unleashed this torrent of violence.”
He further noted that widespread attacks on civilian infrastructure could constitute a war crime under international humanitarian law, potentially placing military personnel in the difficult position of choosing between compliance with orders and adherence to legal obligations.
While the laws of armed conflict do not categorically prohibit attacks on infrastructure such as power plants, they permit them only under strict conditions where military advantage outweighs civilian harm, a threshold widely regarded as difficult to justify due to the principle of distinction between civilian and military targets.
Iranian officials have strongly rejected the threat. The country’s ambassador to the United Nations warned that deliberate targeting of power plants would be indiscriminate and unlawful, according to reports from state media IRNA.
The White House has also faced criticism in connection with broader military actions in the region, including allegations tied to a missile strike on a civilian school in Iran that reportedly resulted in significant casualties.
Trump’s latest directive reportedly gives Iran until Monday to reopen the strait or face strikes on multiple power facilities, with emphasis on larger installations first.
His administration has defended the stance as a necessary measure to compel compliance and disrupt what it describes as infrastructure linked to Iran’s military apparatus.
Mike Waltz said Iran’s Revolutionary Guard controls key elements of national infrastructure and is using them in support of military operations, suggesting that potential targets could include gas-fired thermal plants and similar facilities.
He added in remarks on Fox News, “The president is not messing around.”
International responses have been mixed. Mark Rutte expressed cautious support for efforts to maintain access through the strait, noting that multiple countries are coordinating to implement plans to keep the waterway open.
Meanwhile, Yechiel Leiter urged restraint, warning that excessive destruction could hinder long-term recovery efforts, stating, “We want to leave everything in the country intact, so that the people who come after this regime are going to be able to rebuild and reconstitute.”
Analysts caution that the threat of strikes on energy infrastructure could backfire, potentially prompting Iran to fully close the Strait of Hormuz and retaliate against US and allied assets, further escalating an already volatile regional conflict with significant global economic and security repercussions. - March 23, 2026