Bulwark Takes — "Trump's Iran Ultimatum"

Date: March 24, 2026
Host: Ben Parker
Guests: Ret. Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, Margaret Donovan (former Assistant U.S. Attorney, ex-Army JAG captain)
Theme: President Trump’s threat to target Iran’s civilian power infrastructure, legality, military feasibility, and broader implications.

Episode Overview

This episode examines Donald Trump's controversial ultimatum to Iran—threatening to target Iranian civilian power plants unless the Strait of Hormuz is opened. Ben Parker hosts a deep-dive discussion with legal and military experts Margaret Donovan and Ret. Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, exploring legal frameworks, operational realities, repercussions for the military, and the moral consequences of targeting civilian infrastructure in war.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Trump Threat: What Was Said and What It Means

• Timestamp: [01:37]
• On March 21, Trump posted on his social platform that unless Iran opens the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. would "obliterate various power plants, starting with the biggest one first."
• Ben Parker’s summary: “He threatened to start bombing civilian power plants in Iran.”

Legal Framework: When Are Civilian Targets Legal?

• Margaret Donovan [02:55]
  • “You actually can target, in certain circumstances, civilian infrastructure. And that's kind of a shocking thing for people to learn…”
  • Power plants fall into the most highly protected civilian category—“Category 1 Protected Objects”—and require "ironclad intelligence" of direct military use to lose protected status.
  • For a civilian facility to be targeted:
    • It must directly aid military operations (lose protected status due to its use, nature, location, or purpose).
    • The attack must satisfy the four principles of the Law of Armed Conflict: military necessity, distinction, proportionality, and no unnecessary suffering.
  • Donovan’s core legal critique: Lowering gas prices is not a legitimate military objective, and thus the proposed attack fails all four standards.

Feasibility & Military Realism

• Mark Hertling [08:28]
  • “First reaction was that's impossible... This isn’t a video game where you have the targets immediately available.”
  • Targeting all Iranian power plants strains U.S. military capacity and disrupts ongoing priorities (e.g. keeping the Strait open, hitting missile/drone sites).
  • Cites past experiences: even with clear intelligence, targeting protected sites is fraught and requires meticulous process and justification.
  • On the implications of broad, ambiguous directives: “That’s…dangerous in the first place because… it doesn't contribute to any kind of operational plan or strategic objective.”

Adherence to the Laws of War

• Theme: The order would likely violate at least seven articles of the Geneva Convention (per Hertling).

2. The “Walk-Back” and Its Ambiguity

• Timestamp: [19:49]
• Trump’s follow-up post delays any strike for five days, citing "very good negotiations," but leaves the threat looming.

Is a Tweet an Order?

• Donovan [15:28]
  • “In any other world, that would be an order. ... Orders are actually, they are assumed to be lawful... It is up to people beneath him to determine whether or not the order is actually unlawful.”
  • Raises concern about the ambiguity and chaos of “running a war by tweet” and the short-sightedness of such policy-by-social media.

Military Chain of Command & Moral Dilemmas

• Hertling [17:53]
  • Describes the agony for military officers asked to execute questionable orders: "It’s the most difficult position any officer...can be in. Because the stakes are immense, the pressure is real, and especially... it’s coming from the President. ... There’s no ‘just following orders’ excuse.”
  • Emphasizes the professional and personal burden in these moments.

3. International and Domestic Law: What Actually Governs U.S. Conduct?

• Timestamp: [32:31]
• Donovan breaks down the legal structures:
  • International Law—Geneva Conventions, NATO Treaty, UN Charter—ratified, binding as domestic U.S. law (via Constitution’s Supremacy Clause).
  • Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Criminally binds service members.
  • Rules of Engagement (ROE): Provide context for legal/illegal action in theater; ignoring them can trigger UCMJ action.
  • The burden falls on commanders to ensure orders are legal, as soldiers must trust leadership has made lawful decisions.

4. The Human Factor: Military Morale, Discipline, and Command Climate

• Command Climate [37:08]
• Hertling: “The unit... takes on the personality of the commander.” Dangerous climate if top leaders denigrate the rules (“lethal over legal”).
• Neglect of ROE led to American war crimes in Iraq; responsibility and accountability tracked all the way to command level.
• Donovan [39:33]: Military lawyers have a duty to advise against and report unlawful orders up the chain, even to Congress, and resign if their advice is ignored.

Moral Injury

• Hertling [29:50]: “The moral injuries for soldiers... may not come up when you’re doing it, but five years later… you start thinking about the people you killed in combat. That’s moral injury.”

5. International Precedents and Hypocrisy

• Hertling [26:43]: Drawing a parallel, attacking civilian infrastructure is the “same thing Russia has been doing for the last four years in Ukraine.”
• The U.S. risks eroding its distinction from what it decries as terrorist or rogue state behavior.
• Donovan [27:50]: "That is the line, right? ... The law of armed conflict matters, because that distinguishes us from them."

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Donovan:
  • “[The] advantage I think that the President was trying to convey here... is to lower gas prices, which isn't actually a legitimate military objective.” [03:57]
  • "This is not the way to run a war. By tweet. This is utter insanity." [15:28]
  • "If you think that something is illegal and you are a judge advocate officer... Not only do you have an obligation to tell your commander... people also have an obligation to report war crimes and it is actually a war crime itself... to not report war crimes." [39:33]
• Hertling:
  • “First reaction was that's impossible...This isn't a video game...” [08:28]
  • “When we talk about conducting what I would consider... [an] attack on those facilities... we are using weapons to try and persuade governments to change their direction. It’s the same thing Russia has been doing... That kind of puts us in the same category of being a terrorist...” [26:43]
  • “The expectation remains for professional militaries: you don’t follow illegal or unlawful orders.” [18:36]
• Parker:
  • "The rule can't be we're going to immiserate an entire country so our gas prices get lower because we accidentally spiked them." [08:13]

Timestamps — Key Segments

• [01:37]—Introduction of Trump’s threat, legal issues overview
• [02:55]—Donovan’s legal analysis: what makes civilian power plants targetable in war
• [08:28]—Hertling on the impracticality and danger of such a military order
• [13:05]—Trade-offs: operational focus, consequences for current missions
• [15:28]—Is a tweet an order? Legal implications for military chain of command
• [19:49]—Trump's walk-back: "postponing" the attack, with threat remaining
• [23:29]—Reaction to the walk-back; international response; escalation risks
• [26:43]—The line between legal military action and terrorism
• [29:50]—Effects on military morale, discipline, and cohesion
• [32:31]—Stacking up U.S. and international law: what binds American action?
• [36:16]—Command climate and its effect on following or ignoring legal standards
• [39:33]—Donovan on the duty of a staff JAG officer when confronting an illegal order

Flow & Tone

The discussion moves from an analysis of legality and military feasibility to the very human dimensions of command, decision-making, and long-term consequences for both civilians and service members. The tone is urgent, candid, and at times darkly humorous (e.g., “This is not the way to run a war. By tweet. This is utter insanity.” — Donovan, [15:28]). There’s a throughline of alarm about the erosion of professional and legal restraints on American force, producing a sobering, but extremely informative, listen.

For Listeners Who Missed It

This episode is essential listening for anyone trying to understand the legal and moral boundaries of warfare, the true complexity of “presidential orders” in conflict, and the real-life consequences—strategic, legal, and psychological—of eroding the line between military and civilian targets. Through firsthand expertise and clear analysis, the panel exposes the stakes not just for military professionals, but for America’s role and reputation in the world.

Questions, comments, or want more episodes like this? Write to: commandpost@thebulwark.com or join as a Bulwark Plus member for more in-depth coverage.