adminRepublican Rep. Derrick Van Orden made a blunt and necessary point on Ed Henry’s The Big Take: power plants can be dual-use assets and, in wartime, may constitute legitimate military targets when they materially support an enemy’s war-making capacity. Conservatives who believe in decisive strength should not flinch at hard truths — crippling an adversary’s logistical backbone can save American lives and shorten conflict, not prolong it. Van Orden’s realism reflects a long-standing strategic calculus that anyone serious about victory understands.
President Trump’s repeated warnings that he would “hit and obliterate” Iranian power plants if Tehran does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz have jolted the debate from abstract policy into real-world consequences. The president’s posture has forced both allies and adversaries to reckon with the fact that the United States will not allow strategic chokepoints to be used as leverage against global commerce and American interests. This is strength — not recklessness — when it is directed at protecting free passage and deterring further Iranian aggression.
Tehran predictably responded with bluster, threatening to shut the Strait of Hormuz and to strike regional energy and desalination infrastructure if the United States moves against its power grid. That kind of escalation talk is what happens when a regime that sponsors proxies and weaponizes commerce is put on notice — and it exposes the malign logic of a theocratic state that treats civilian infrastructure as a bargaining chip. Americans should listen to the warning, not be cowed by it.
Reports have even surfaced that senior aides quietly laid out the case to the White House that destroying certain power-generating facilities and bridges could degrade Iran’s missile and nuclear programs — in short, to blunt Tehran’s ability to project violence. In war, there are no perfect choices, only necessary ones; targeting dual-use nodes that directly contribute to an enemy’s warfighting capability is a grim but legitimate part of denying them that capability. Those who wrap themselves in legalistic outrage should remember that strategy and law intersect where civilian harm is minimized and military advantage is real.
International legal scholars and precedent acknowledge the messy reality that infrastructure with direct military utility can, under strict conditions and proportionality assessments, be considered a lawful target. This is not a swaggering endorsement of wanton destruction — it is the sober application of law to the realities of modern conflict, where enemies hide behind civilian networks and exploit the restraint of democracies. Washington’s job is to apply that law judiciously while protecting Americans and our partners from further Iranian coercion.
Enough with the moral preening from the left and the media elites who criticize strength from the safety of their studios; American power must be credible to deter and, when necessary, decisive to prevail. If our leaders judge that striking specific dual-use targets will prevent greater bloodshed and defend global trade and allies, then we should stand with them and the men and women of our armed forces who execute these hard orders. Patriots understand that preserving peace sometimes requires the willingness to use force wisely and firmly.
