[U.S.–Iran War] Trump Sets Deadlines Over Talks, Signals Strikes on Iranian Power Plants and Bridges

From military sites to civilian infrastructure, targets broaden
Middle East investment assets including data centers at risk
Prolonged conflict and shifts in regional order raise U.S. strategic burden

The United States has escalated military pressure by warning it will directly strike key facilities, including power plants, in response to Iran’s attempt to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. President Donald Trump specified a concrete deadline, signaling readiness for large-scale military action. At the same time, Iran publicly named U.S. corporate data centers and energy infrastructure as potential retaliation targets, moving to widen the scope of confrontation. The international community now fears the war’s impact could extend beyond the Middle East into the global economy and diplomatic order.

Hardline response despite concerns over international law violations

According to The Wall Street Journal on the 5th, President Trump said in an interview that “if the situation does not change by Tuesday evening (the 7th), all of Iran’s power plants and major facilities will be gone,” referring to Iran’s attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz. He had first warned of bombing Iranian power plants on the 21st of last month. At the time, he said an attack would follow within 48 hours unless the strait was reopened, but on the 23rd he delayed action, citing ongoing negotiations with Iran. He then postponed the timing to 8 p.m. on the 6th of this month on the 26th, ultimately delaying four times in total up to this point.

The latest remarks came immediately after a recent U.S. military pilot rescue operation. Diplomatic circles largely interpret the weekend developments as having further reinforced Trump’s willingness to pursue a hardline response. In fact, while stating he would “let you know soon” about the war’s end, Trump also said, “we are in a very advantageous position, and even if that country is lucky enough to survive, it will take 20 years to rebuild.” The comment is read as a pressure message premised on damage at the level of national reconstruction, clearly outlining the scale of impact should negotiations collapse.

Iran responded strongly. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf warned that “America’s reckless actions will set the entire region ablaze.” Formal ceasefire talks between the two sides have stalled, with only informal contacts continuing through regional mediators and U.S. envoys such as Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. In particular, Iran’s refusal of a U.S. end-of-war proposal and its apparent shift toward a prolonged war of attrition reinforce a pattern in which both sides remain far from any meaningful compromise.

Addressing concerns over attacks on civilian infrastructure, Trump claimed that “the Iranian people want this too.” However, experts consistently note that under international law, attacks on civilian infrastructure such as power plants require proof of military necessity and must be predicated on minimizing civilian harm. Michael Schmitt, professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, cited international criticism of power plant strikes during the early 1990s Gulf War, stating that “bombing power plants simply to raise the level of military pressure against an adversary cannot be justified.”

Signs of shock to advanced infrastructure investment structures

Iran’s response appears not limited to diplomatic rhetoric. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) publicly declared it would “completely destroy” OpenAI’s data center ‘Stargate’ under construction in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. In doing so, the IRGC released a strike list that included satellite imagery and precise coordinates, signaling preparations that assume the possibility of an actual attack. The facility, with an investment of $30 billion, is a mega-scale infrastructure project comparable in power consumption to that of a nuclear reactor, placing it at the level of a national critical facility and effectively designating it as a military target.

Iran has further expanded the scope of potential targets. IRGC spokesperson Brigadier General Ebrahim Zolfaghari stated that “if the United States attacks Iran’s power plants and other energy facilities, we will annihilate all U.S.-related ICT facilities and energy infrastructure in the region.” The current retaliation list includes 18 U.S. technology companies, including Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple, and Google. This scope targets both AI semiconductor supply and cloud infrastructure simultaneously, extending the target set across the broader industrial ecosystem.

This trajectory is expected to act as a destabilizing factor for the investment structure of the AI industry itself. As of the end of last year, the global AI industry generated $60 billion in revenue, while capital expenditures reached $400 billion. Investment levels are nearly seven times revenue, implying that most funding has been debt-financed. In such a context, any rise in energy costs would inevitably place direct pressure on investment returns. The Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee had already noted growing doubts about investment profitability even before the war, stating that “rising energy costs will further amplify these concerns.”

From a financial structure perspective, risk transmission scenarios are also emerging. Many data center operators have used special purpose vehicles (SPVs) to move assets and liabilities off their balance sheets and raise funds by securitizing future lease revenues. The Guardian reported that $120 billion in debt has been shifted through such structures over the past two years. If energy infrastructure is struck and costs surge, the resulting shock is expected to spread across the broader financial system.

Long-term geopolitical risk expansion appears unavoidable

At the same time, Iran has continued missile attacks targeting Gulf states. On the 19th of last month, it struck Qatar’s Ras Laffan energy complex in retaliation for Israel’s attack on its South Pars gas field. Nevertheless, Gulf countries, including Qatar, have refrained from direct retaliation. Despite missile and drone debris falling across Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and the UAE, the prevailing pattern has been one of restraint from military response. This cautious posture among Gulf states has slowed the pace at which the conflict could spread across the region.

Clear calculations underpin the Gulf states’ decisions. Sina Toossi, senior nonresident fellow at the Center for International Policy (CIP), a U.S. think tank, said, “from the Gulf states’ perspective, this is not their war,” adding that “if they move prematurely toward retaliation, they risk becoming larger targets rather than vulnerable bystanders.” He pointed to their economic structures as the basis for this assessment. These countries rely heavily on energy facilities, shipping, and investor confidence. Iran, positioned along the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, has the capacity to directly destabilize these foundations. This implies that confrontation with Iran could lead to a significant escalation in damage.

Concerns are also mounting over the long-term consequences the war may leave behind. Professor Rob Geist Pinfold of King’s College London noted that “Gulf states are evaluating the current situation based on the chaos that followed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.” At that time, Iraq experienced a power vacuum and sectarian conflict after the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime, which in turn destabilized the broader Middle East. Pinfold criticized the current approach, stating that “the United States appears to be conducting what is effectively an open-ended operation with neither clear objectives nor a defined endpoint.”

Trump’s hardline rhetoric is also heightening diplomatic tensions. The Guardian described his remarks as “unabashed viciousness,” assessing that “such language undermines diplomatic trust and only increases the likelihood of misunderstanding.” It further warned that “the role of mediator and diplomatic leadership that the United States has built over decades is at risk of collapsing due to the language choices of a single individual.” As willingness for dialogue diminishes and military responses take precedence, there are growing signs that the shock could spread across the international community as a whole.