What the US military could do if Iran fails to meet Trump’s ultimatum
Time is Running Out for Trump’s Warning to Iran
President Donald Trump has set a firm deadline for Iran to reach a deal by Tuesday evening, threatening to target much of the country’s civilian infrastructure if negotiations fail. However, military analysts argue that the scale of this threat may be difficult to execute swiftly, according to a BBC report. They caution that even a significant attack might not compel Iran to accept a ceasefire quickly.
Ambitious Threats and Strategic Challenges
Trump’s Monday declaration to “destroy every bridge” and power station in Iran within four hours has intensified pressure on the nation. On Tuesday, he warned of “a whole civilization dying” if a deal isn’t reached by his deadline, marking a new level of escalation. This combination of warnings has been described as an unusual presidential threat. While targeting civilian sites could be classified as a war crime, some legal experts suggest Trump’s rhetoric might border on inciting genocide.
“To meet this threat literally would be an absolute herculean task,” remarked a former senior US defence official. “Would it have the desired strategic effect?” they added, questioning whether the intensity of the threat would achieve its intended goal.
Despite the dramatic language, the US military faces logistical hurdles. Iran spans about one-third the size of the continental US, making it impractical to destroy all bridges in a short timeframe. While the US has precise knowledge of Iran’s main nuclear facilities, identifying and striking thousands of other targets quickly remains a challenge, experts noted.
Targeting Key Infrastructure for Impact
Analysts suggest a large-scale attack on Iran’s power sector is more realistic than a bridge-destroying campaign. Most of Iran’s power plants and refineries are concentrated in three coastal provinces—Bushehr, Khuzestan, and Hormozgan—on the Persian Gulf. As a former US Treasury official explained, “Striking those three provinces would cut the regime’s access to oil revenue and its access to the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz.”
“You do anything to those three provinces, you cut the regime’s access to oil revenue [and] its access to the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz,” said Miad Maleki, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy.
In a separate development, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called for a two-week extension to the deadline, urging Trump to allow more time for talks. Sharif proposed that Iran reciprocate by opening the Strait of Hormuz for a similar period, framing it as a goodwill gesture. Pakistan has positioned itself as a crucial mediator between the US and Iran, possibly hosting high-level discussions if a ceasefire seems near.
Meanwhile, the White House confirmed Trump had been briefed on Sharif’s proposal. A press secretary noted the US would respond shortly. Trump himself told Fox News that negotiations with Iran were ongoing amid “heated discussions.” Earlier that day, Vice President JD Vance revealed the US had launched airstrikes on Kharg Island, a vital hub for Iran’s oil exports. He clarified these strikes were part of the current strategy and did not signal a shift in approach.
The White House rejected claims that Vance’s remarks hinted at a nuclear strike against Iran. While the US retains the capability to inflict substantial economic harm, the focus remains on diplomatic efforts to secure a deal before the deadline. As the clock continues to count down, the balance between military readiness and political maneuvering remains critical.
