Attacking Iran's energy and water infrastructure is not a winning ...
AI Analysis
The article discusses the strategic implications of potential US strikes on Iran's energy and water infrastructure, highlighting Iran's likely symmetrical retaliation against Gulf states' infrastructure. It emphasizes that such actions may not achieve US objectives and could escalate regional tensions.
Key Takeaways
- US President Trump threatens strikes on Iranian infrastructure if no deal is reached.
- Iran is expected to retaliate symmetrically, targeting Gulf states' infrastructure.
- Strikes may not compel Iran to lift its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
- Iran's historical use of symmetry in military responses is highlighted.
- Potential catastrophic consequences for regional energy and water security.
Why It Matters
The potential for escalated conflict in the Gulf region could destabilize global energy markets and increase military tensions. Understanding Iran's likely symmetrical response is crucial for anticipating regional security dynamics and preparing countermeasures.
Attacking Iran’s energy and water infrastructure is not a winning strategy - Atlantic Council
A US Sailor signals to an F/A-18E Super Hornet aircraft on the flight deck of the USS Gerald R. Ford, while operating in support of Operation Epic Fury on March 2, 2026. (US Navy photo)
WASHINGTON—US President Donald Trump wants the Iran war to be a “win” for the United States. It could be—if Iran gives up building a nuclear weapon, opens the Strait of Hormuz, ends its support for proxy militias, and accepts limits on missiles and drones.
However, on March 30, Trump said that if there is no deal on these issues, the United States “will conclude our lovely ‘stay’ in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!).” Two days later, in a primetime national address, Trump said, “If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric-generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously.”
But strikes on Iranian infrastructure would not constitute a winning strategy for the United States. Iran’s peculiar sense of symmetry means that Tehran will almost certainly retaliate by attacking Arab Gulf states’ energy and drinking water infrastructure—with potentially catastrophic consequences. Moreover, given how Iran’s leaders think, infrastructure strikes are unlikely to get Iran to lift its blockade of the strait.
A history of symmetry
I have worked against the Iranian regime since 1981, when I successfully represented American companies that won hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation from the Islamic Republic at the Iran-US Claims Tribunal in The Hague. I was in the first US-Iran “track two” meetings in the 1990s and helped promote accountability for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s war crimes against Iranians. In the 2000s, on the State Department’s Iraq desk and in the US Embassy in Baghdad, I helped to counter Iranian influence in Iraq at a time when the United States pushed back hard, often successfully, against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its proxies. Then as deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism policy at the US Department of Homeland Security, I chaired the department’s Iran Task Force from 2012 to 2018, helping to protect against a range of Iranian threats. I also worked closely with US allies and partners in the Middle East to help protect infrastructure from terrorist attacks. Then, as now, Iran was the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.
My long experience with Iran has underscored this conclusion: For historical, cultural, and strategic reasons, the Iranian regime uses a peculiar sense of symmetry in conducting military and terrorist campaigns. Several examples demonstrate Iran’s approach:
- In June 2010, “ Stuxnet” malware showed how industrial control systems could damage Iranian uranium-enrichment