The Dangerous Logic of Targeting Energy Infrastructure can Only Bring Mutual Self-Destruction and the Prospect of Regional Ruin

The Greek Courier — Credit: CNN reporting

Economic Warfare is at Full Throttle. US miscalculation on Iran's upgraded ballistic ability, Tehran's Hold on Hormuz, and Threats of Attacking Energy Networks Risk Widespread Devastation, as Trump says he will “hit and obliterate” Iranian power plants if Iran does not reopen the strait to all shipping within 48 hours.

The Middle East stands at a hair-trigger. What began as targeted strikes and political brinkmanship that failed to convince anyone of its goals and intentions has metastasized into a regional conflagration with economic shocks, heavy bombing, death, and civilian suffering, and a widening list of state and non-state actors drawn into widespread violence. Way to go, Donald! You got your epic war, and now you threaten to blow the pillars of our economic stability. What began as madness has already spread — and it will soon be knocking on everyone’s door. Because Iran’s latest declaration — that it will “completely close” the Strait of Hormuz if the United States strikes its power plants — crystallizes a new, dangerous calculus: the war is now as much about control of global commerce and infrastructure as it is about military objectives. Without an escape plan, if tensions snap, the consequences would be immediate and far-reaching. They could even stretch until November, and then what? 

A developing nightmare

Iran’s armed forces headquarters warned that any US bombing of Iranian power plants would trigger an indefinite closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran’s statement also declared Israeli energy and communications infrastructure — and regional facilities with U.S. shareholders — to be legitimate targets in retaliation. Iran has continued missile and drone strikes across the region. Over the weekend, missiles hit southern Israeli cities, including Arad and Dimona -where a nuclear plant is located-, wounding dozens. Israel said it intercepted 92% of incoming ballistic missiles; Tehran insists its campaign will continue.

It is also alarming that Tehran recently launched two intermediate-range ballistic missiles at Diego Garcia, a joint US-UK military base in the Indian Ocean. As CNN explains, while the attack was unsuccessful, it shows that Iran may not be adhering its self-imposed missile range limit of 2,000 kilometers, raising concerns about whether Tehran could hit US and European interests farther away than previously thought. However, sources told CNN late last month that there was no intelligence to suggest that Iran is pursuing an intercontinental ballistic missile program to hit the US at this time.

In the meantime, President Donald Trump threatened to “hit and obliterate” Iranian power plants if Tehran did not reopen the strait to all shipping within 48 hours. The U.S. and its partners have already carried out strikes on Iranian military and energy-related sites earlier in the campaign. The cavalry is on its way, and nobody knows how this will develop when the time expires.

At the same time, the conflict’s human toll and infrastructure damage have surged. Iranian officials and rights groups stationed in the Middle East report thousands killed across Iran, Lebanon, and other theaters. Pope Leo has condemned war in the Middle East as a “scandal to the entire human family and a cry before God,” in his weekly prayer at the Vatican’s St. Peter’s Square. He encouraged those who had gathered to pray so that “hostilities may cease and paths of peace, based on sincere dialogue and respect for the dignity of every human being, may finally open,” according to the Vatican’s official news outlet, Vatican News.

Iran’s Red Crescent says more than 80,000 civilian units (homes, schools, medical centers) have been damaged in Iranian provinces. So much for the targeted strikes! A power game where the civilians learn to live in bunkers while their livelihoods are being torn apart. This is war’s true madness: a campaign driven by a ruthless power game between two ruthless regimes that inflicts suffering on everybody in the neighbourhood, including Israelites, with no easy cure. Like an itch you cannot scratch. An itch that spreads like cancer. Today, Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun condemned Israel’s attacks on Lebanese infrastructure in southern Lebanon, saying that they are a “prelude to a ground invasion” and in “clear violation” of international law.

In the West and all around the globe, ripple effects are already visible. Brent crude and U.S. oil prices jumped after attacks on energy facilities and the partial disruption of Hormuz traffic. Governments and energy markets are scrambling for contingency plans. Diplomacy and institutions strain under the pressure: the IAEA has said talks could resume if hostilities cease; global protests against the war have spread across cities from Tel Aviv to London and Madrid.

In the United states, a new poll from CBS News and YouGov finds deepening opposition to the war with Iran, as two-thirds of Americans see it as a war of choice rather than necessity. Sixty percent disapprove of the US taking military action against Iran in the new poll, up from 56% who felt that way earlier in March, and a growing share (68%, up from 62% earlier in March) say that the Trump administration has not clearly explained the US’ goals in the conflict. Almost six in 10 (57%) also say that the war is going badly for the US, while just 43% say it’s going well.

Why Hormuz matters

The Strait of Hormuz is the choke point of the global petroleum economy. Closure — whether by mined waters, escort interdictions, or Tehran’s declaring selective passage — would constrict supply, spike prices, and destabilize markets. Even the threat of closure forces shipping reroutes, higher insurance costs and rapid market reactions. Tehran’s reported plans to “monetize” control of the strait — demanding payments per tanker — turn maritime power into leverage with immediate economic bite.

Escalation pathways

Trump’s explicit threat against Iran’s power grid signals a willingness to strike nonmilitary infrastructure to coerce behavior. Iran has vowed reciprocal attacks on similar civilian and critical infrastructure across the region, raising the specter of widespread humanitarian crises, water and food shortages, and long-term damage to lifelines that sustain populations. Even Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last shah, called on Israel and the United States today to spare civilian infrastructure in their strikes on Iran, he did, however, express his continued support for the US and Israel’s targeting of the Iranian regime and its “apparatus of repression.”

Israel risks a wider regional conflagration, as it has accelerated strikes in Lebanon and ordered the demolition of bridges near the Litani River; Iran's proxies, Hezbollah, Shiite militias, and regional states are poised to respond. Attacks on transport and supply lines — whether deliberate or collateral — increase the risk of ground invasions and occupation tactics that further degrade civilian life and regional order. 

As mentioned before, Iran’s attempt to strike Diego Garcia and other long-range launches have unnerved military planners with the prospect of distant bases and merchant shipping being threatened, drawing in distant powers, and complicating the calculus for restraint.

As a result, economic and geopolitical feedback loops. Higher energy prices strengthen the hands of geopolitical rivals like Russia and fuel domestic economic strain in many countries, feeding political instability that can sustain or widen the war. 

Even worse, "a long war in Iran will help Vladimir Putin", Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky warned today, as Russia began its spring offensive in eastern Ukraine, which includes the use of dozens of tanks and armored vehicles. Zelensky said he has a “very bad feeling” about the consequences of the Middle East conflict for his country. 

The political shadow at home: American calculus and midterm politics

An undercurrent in the U.S. decision-making environment is political calculus. The White House faces a fraught balancing act: the need to appear resolute against a regional adversary — and to placate domestic constituencies that demand strength — runs headlong into the electoral reality of midterm politics. A direct strike on Iranian civilian infrastructure, especially one that prompts a spike in gasoline prices or prolonged supply shocks, carries clear political risk for the incumbent administration.

That tension matters because it shapes choices. To begin with, threats may be pointed and public, but constrained in execution if policymakers fear short-term domestic fallout. Also, narrow, targeted military actions that avoid mass civilian harm may be prioritized over wide-ranging strikes that would inflame markets and public opinion. Naturally, deniability, escalatory management, and working through allies become attractive strategies to avoid visible blame or blame-back in an election cycle.

On the other hand, a strike on civilian power infrastructure risks a cascade: Iran’s explicit vow to hit energy and communications facilities — including those tied to the U.S. and its partners — sets a tit-for-tat logic that can rapidly spiral. at the same time, maritime interdiction or a mined sea lane would trigger an acute energy shock and could force naval confrontations that are inherently hazardous and hard to control.

Furthermore, Armageddon looms if attacks that degrade nuclear or industrial sites result in environmental disasters with cross-border consequences and long-term humanitarian fallout. 

And what about the big adversaries? The broader strategic costs and all decisions of Trump's administration up to now do nothing but empower a supposed rival, namely Russia, while stretching already-taxed Western military resources, including European, and weakening the global order by normalizing attacks on civilian infrastructure.

Diplomacy and de-escalation prospects... yeah, right 

The International Atomic Energy Agency and other diplomatic channels have signaled readiness to re-engage if fighting pauses. Some states, notably in Europe and Asia, have begun contingency planning (from gas storage flexibility to mine-sweeping proposals). But durable de-escalation requires mutual incentives: credible security guarantees, mechanisms to keep the shipping lanes safe, and clear, enforceable agreements to protect civilian infrastructure.

Short of a negotiated pause, the facts on the ground point to a prolonged, grinding conflict. That outcome benefits no one — except actors who profit from sustained instability, like Trump, Putin, Netanyahu, and the Iranian regime — while inflicting disproportionate costs on the rest of us civilians, in regional economies and global markets.

The bottom line? The region is under stress like a pot coming to a boil: heat rising, edges trembling, steam beginning to hiss. Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz and to target regional infrastructure in retaliation for strikes on power plants is not mere sabre-rattling; it is an escalation with immediate economic and military consequences. Washington — constrained by strategic, military, and domestic political considerations, including the specter of midterm electoral costs — faces a brutal choice between visibly decisive action and the peril of uncontrolled escalation. Until one side yields a durable exit ramp, the world watches a volatile equilibrium that could snap with catastrophic speed.

Sources: Reporting and updates compiled from CNN.