Credits: White House (Daniel Torok) — public domain.
On April 6, 2026, Donald Trump publicly threatened Iran with massive strikes against bridges and power plants. But on April 7, as the deadline he had set himself approached, that pressure strategy was paired with an offer of an immediate ceasefire — presented, according to Reuters, as the opening of broader talks within 15 to 20 days. Tehran rejected the proposal. That turn, however, does not change the central fact: to extract an agreement on the nuclear issue and the Strait of Hormuz, the White House has already publicly put at risk infrastructure on which civilian life depends.
From Raw Threat To Conditional Truce
The new element is therefore no longer just the threat of a new strike. It is the way Washington is trying to convert that threat into diplomatic leverage. Reuters reports that a proposal transmitted via Pakistan envisaged an immediate ceasefire and lifting of the de facto blockade of Hormuz, followed by talks toward a broader settlement within 15 to 20 days. At the same time, Donald Trump continued to brandish an attack plan concentrated within four hours and insisted that the whole country could be “wiped out in one night.” Framed this way, the sequence shifts the debate: it is no longer only about the intensity of the escalation, but about the legality of the threat and the credibility of the diplomatic exit offered.
Under international humanitarian law, objects of a civilian character cannot be targeted as such. The International Committee of the Red Cross notes, in its customary law database, that attacks must distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects. In a landmark analysis on energy infrastructure, ICRC legal advisers Eirini Giorgou and Abby Zeith further stress that electricity powers services essential to civilians, from water to hospitals. In other words, a power plant or a bridge cannot be treated as a lawful target by default; it depends on its actual military use, the military necessity invoked, and the proportionality of the attack.
That does not allow one to assert that a war crime has already been committed. But the public threat does raise the legal and political risk a notch, even if it is now accompanied by a proposed truce. France 24 noted on April 7 that this rhetoric had become part of an open debate on war crimes. Indeed, it targets infrastructure whose destruction would primarily affect civilians.
Western Allies Still Embarrassed
This sequence complicates the position of Western partners. On substance, several European capitals share the objective of containing Iran’s nuclear program and securing commercial navigation in the Gulf. But in recent weeks they have also drawn a red line against attacks on populations and civilian infrastructure.
On March 27, G7 foreign ministers, meeting under French presidency, called for “an immediate halt to attacks against populations and civilian infrastructure.” That formulation was not aimed solely at American rhetoric. However, it becomes politically awkward when the President of the United States publicly threatens Iranian bridges and power plants, then seeks to back that threat with a truce. For Paris, Berlin, Rome or Brussels, the cost is not only moral. It strikes at the credibility of a Western camp that claims to defend the international order. Yet that camp is forced to comment on, support, or downplay a threat against civilian installations while simultaneously welcoming, or not, the diplomatic opening.
France, for its part, has already condemned the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz. It has also denounced Iranian attacks on commercial ships and energy facilities. But the sequence opened by Donald Trump further complicates the equation: allies can endorse freedom of navigation, non-proliferation and even the idea of a truce, without thereby endorsing a threat made against civilian infrastructure. This dissonance weakens the diplomatic coalition.
Why The Strait Of Hormuz Matters To Europe Too
The second consequence is very concrete. The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most sensitive energy chokepoints. The International Energy Agency indicates that in 2025 roughly 20 million barrels per day of crude and petroleum products transited it. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that this corridor accounted for nearly 29% of global seaborne oil flows. Moreover, in the first half of 2025 it represented a major share of liquefied natural gas trade.
For Europe, that means rapid exposure to price shocks, even without uniform dependence on each Gulf supplier. If a truce held and Hormuz reopened, some pressure on markets could ease. But as long as the passage remains vulnerable, renewed military deterioration can push the price per barrel up, raise maritime transport costs and in turn feed fuel prices and inflation. In an already strained context, the Trump-Iran sequence therefore concerns not only Washington and Tehran: it also threatens European household budgets.
A Diplomatic Window That Does Not Erase The Precedent
At this stage, several points remain uncertain. Reuters described a two-step scheme, with an immediate ceasefire followed by 15 to 20 days of talks. But no fully verified official Iranian document yet confirms acceptance of that formula. The criminal-law qualification of any strikes also remains conditional: it would depend on the targets actually hit, the military justifications advanced and the concrete effects on civilians.
But the essential point is already visible. By publicly threatening bridges and power plants and then appending a conditional truce to that threat, Donald Trump has shifted the center of gravity. The question is no longer only how far the U.S. military can go. It is also how far the United States is willing to instrumentalize international law, global energy security and the embarrassment of its allies to extract an agreement from Tehran.
Video unavailable