A bridge was damaged by U.S. airstrikes west of Tehran. Vahid Salemi/AP
WASHINGTON -- Top aides have privately made the case to President Trump in recent days that Iran's power-generating facilities and bridges are legitimate military targets because destroying them could cripple the country's missile and nuclear programs, officials say.
Trump embraced the rationale, sharply questioned by legal experts and human-rights groups, in a nationwide address Wednesday when he vowed to bomb Iran "back to the stone ages."
By Saturday, as an urgent rescue mission was under way to find a missing U.S. aviator whose aircraft was shot down in Iran, the president showed no signs of backing down on the new strategy.
"Remember when I gave Iran ten days to MAKE A DEAL or OPEN UP THE HORMUZ STRAIT," he posted on Truth Social. "Time is running out -- 48 hours before all Hell will reign down on them."
The U.S. on Thursday struck an Iranian bridge connecting Tehran to the city of Karaj, with American officials insisting that the structure could be used to transport missiles, drones and other military material. At least 13 people were killed in the attack, according to Iranian state media.
Trump signaled Friday morning more severe attacks are coming that could affect the lives of Iran's 93 million people. Some Trump administration officials have privately taken to calling this phase of the war "Operation Epic Fury 2," although the name isn't official.
"Our Military," Trump wrote on Truth Social, "hasn't even started destroying what's left in Iran. Bridges next, then Electric Power Plants!"
Trump's strategy raises a host of legal and humanitarian questions, including whether it will hurt the long-repressed Iranian population the president once resolved to help.
Among those who have briefed the president on the legal rationale to hit civilian targets is Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who advised Trump that roadways could be struck because Iran's military could use them to move missiles and materials for making drones. A White House official added that electric plants are legitimate military targets because destroying them could foment civil unrest, complicating Tehran's path to a nuclear device.
Current and former military officials caution, however, that it is not lawful to strike an adversary's infrastructure merely to pressure the foe to begin negotiations or to send political signals.
While the U.S. has attacked bridges and energy infrastructure during previous Middle East wars, these officials say those attacks were legally constrained by several principles: The strikes could only be carried out if it could be shown they were needed to provide a concrete military advantage; that no less destructive method was feasible; and that excess harm wouldn't be done to civilians.
"I could write a memo that says the entire energy infrastructure of Iran is a legal target," said Geoffrey Corn, a former Army lawyer who now directs the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech, "but that would be overbroad; and for those people who say if you attack civilian infrastructure you're committing a war crime well that's equally overbroad."
"Ultimately, such objects may or may not be lawful targets but that must be based on the circumstances related to the military operation and civilian considerations for each object," said Corn.
When asked to comment, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement: "It is the duty of the War Department to ensure that the commander-in-chief has every possible military option at his disposal."
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said that Trump "is in close contact with our partners in the Middle East" and that "the terrorist Iranian regime's attacks on its neighbors prove how imperative it was that President Trump eliminate this threat to our country and our allies."
Legal issues aren't the only consideration that the White House has to weigh. Trump's threat to strike Iran's power plants has alarmed some Gulf state partners who fear that it could spur Tehran to lash out at their energy infrastructure.
A senior Gulf state official said such worries have been directly expressed to Trump administration officials since the president warned last month that the country would "hit and obliterate" Iran's power infrastructure if it didn't quickly open the Strait of Hormuz.
The fear of a spiraling series of tit-for-tat strikes on Middle East energy facilities isn't a hypothetical concern. When Israel struck a major Iranian gas field last month, Iran responded by striking a major Qatar natural-gas field. And Kuwait on Friday accused Iran of attacking a major desalination plant.
Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, said Thursday that Trump's vow to expand the airstrikes "will not compel Iranians to surrender," adding that the bridge that was hit Thursday was "unfinished" before the attack.
The administration's contention that hitting civilian infrastructure will halt Iran's nuclear program in particular is likely to receive scrutiny. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has acknowledged that the Iranians aren't currently enriching uranium. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency has said that there is no indication Iran has moved any of the highly enriched uranium from its nuclear facilities that the U.S. and Israel attacked in June.
The U.S. military struck Iraq's electrical infrastructure during the 1991 Persian Gulf War to undermine the adversary's ability to command its forces and operate its air defense. But steps were taken to try to limit the long-term consequences for civilians.
The power grid around Baghdad, for example, was targeted by filament-carrying cruise missiles to short out the power lines. But pilots were instructed to avoid targeting the power generators themselves. In the confusion of the war, those instructions weren't always followed and some plants were struck. Studies after that conflict concluded the damage hampered efforts to purify water and contributed to infant mortality.
Regional experts and humanitarian groups are concerned that Trump's air campaign will be less constrained than in past wars. It was only a month ago that Trump vowed to "Make Iran Great Again," and three months since he proclaimed "help is on its way" after 45,000 Iranians opposing the regime were brutally killed. Targeting civilian sites could turn the Iran population against the war Trump launched, they fear.
"The bombing will continue to degrade not just the regime," said Gregory Brew, a senior analyst on Iran at the Eurasia Group consulting firm,"until Iran itself starts to come apart."
Sarah Yager, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch who used to work on the Pentagon's Joint Staff, said that Trump's threat to strike power infrastructure is particularly alarming because such sites are vital for civilian life.
"Hospitals, water systems, basic services all depend on it," Yager said. "Even when there may be a military rationale, the law requires extreme caution around places like power plants."
Attacking desalination plants, which Trump said he might target in a social-media post on Monday, is even more controversial. The 1949 Geneva Convention limits attacks on facilities vital for the survival of the civilian population. Core to that agreement is that the public be left with adequate access to food and water, and there can be no strikes to starve the population or force the displacement of civilians.
David Deptula, a retired three-star general who helped direct the 1991 Desert Storm campaign, said that a case can be made for selective attacks on Iran's energy infrastructure. But he added: "when you start talking about taking out desalinization plants, that raises serious questions about compliance with the Laws of International Armed Conflict."
When asked on Tuesday during a press conference about the potential destruction of desalination plans, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dan Caine told reporters "we have numerous processes and systems to carefully consider the whole range of considerations, from civilian risk to legal considerations with any target."