U.S. President Donald Trump with members of military at Dover Air Force Base in Dover, Delaware, U.S., March 7, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
U.S. President Donald Trump recently threatened to carry out air strikes against Iran's power plants if the regime in Tehran doesn't leave the Strait of Hormuz — a key waterway crucial to the flow of oil — alone. So far, Trump hasn't made good on that threat, but he hasn't ruled out the possibility.
In an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on March 24, retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling argues that Trump's handling of the war against Iran is putting military ethics to the test.
"'Words are important, so be precise,' was a mantra often repeated during my time at the War College," explains Hertling, who served as commander of U.S. Army Europe under former President Barack Obama. "'Words can cause chaos, or bring understanding,' the strategy professor told us. President Trump's threat to strike Iran's power plants if they didn’t open the Strait of Hormuz was a violation of that dictum…. Iran's response to an attack on its civilian power generation was predicted to be swift and damaging; its leaders warned that any attack on their energy infrastructure would be met with retaliation against critical systems across the region…. A strike on Iranian power plants would not have ended with damage inside Iran."
Hertling adds, "It would have triggered a chain reaction: attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure, disruptions to maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, proxy strikes on U.S. forces, and likely cyber operations targeting financial and energy systems well beyond the immediate theater."
If Trump does order an attack on Iran's power plants, Hertling warns, it will be a major test of military rules under the Geneva Conventions.
"Too often overlooked…. is the damage an order to attack Iran's population would have had on the U.S. military," Hertling argues. "Had such a strike been ordered — particularly in the broad, coercive terms in which the president announced it — it would have forced American military leaders into one of the most difficult positions they can face: determining whether a presidential order was lawful, and if not, refusing to carry it out."
The former U.S. Army Europe commander continues, "From their earliest days in uniform, all soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardians are taught that they are bound not only to obey lawful orders but to disobey unlawful ones. And in classrooms and professional development sessions, those same officers address the repercussions of such actions. The distinction is not semantic or theoretical. It is part of the foundation of the training, doctrine, and ethos of the U.S. military."
According to Hertling, U.S. military rules of war offer "clear guidance on the targeting of infrastructure, such as electrical power systems" and make a distinction between "military objectives" and "civilian objects."
"Power plants that serve citizens, by default, are civilian infrastructure," Hertling notes. "While they can, in some cases, serve dual-use functions that support military activity, that does not render them automatically targetable. The burden remains on the attacker to demonstrate that the facility is making an effective contribution to military operations and that its destruction offers a definite military advantage. This principle is described in Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, particularly Article 48 and Article 52, and it forms the baseline for all lawful targeting decisions…. An attack is unlawful if the expected civilian harm would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military gain."
Hertling adds, "In modern societies, the effects of disabling electrical power are not limited or temporary. They cascade. Hospitals lose life-saving capabilities. Water systems fail. Sewage systems back up. Food supply chains break down. Communications degrade. The impact is not confined to combatants; it falls overwhelmingly on civilians."