WELLINGTON, New Zealand — March 23, 2026 — President Donald J. Trump has issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Iran, warning that the United States will strike and destroy the country’s power plants — starting with the largest — if Tehran does not fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz without threats.

In a post on Truth Social late Saturday, Mr. Trump set the deadline, which expires around midday New Zealand time on March 24. Iran has responded defiantly, vowing to close the strategic waterway indefinitely and to retaliate by targeting energy and water infrastructure across the Gulf region, including facilities linked to U.S. bases and Israel, if its own power plants are attacked.

The escalation comes amid a rapidly widening conflict that began with Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iran and has now entered its fourth week. The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s seaborne oil passes, has been partially disrupted by Iranian actions, contributing to sharp rises in global energy prices.

In the latest episode of The Front Page, the New Zealand Herald’s daily podcast, host Chelsea Daniels spoke with Professor Alexander Gillespie, an international law expert at the University of Waikato, about the legal and strategic implications.

Professor Gillespie described attacks on power plants as legally problematic under international humanitarian law, which generally protects civilian infrastructure unless it makes an effective contribution to military action and its destruction offers a definite military advantage. He noted that such strikes risk causing disproportionate harm to civilians by triggering widespread blackouts affecting hospitals, water supplies and sewage systems.

“War is meant to have rules, but what you’re seeing increasingly is a lawless version of this warfare breaking out,” he said. Both sides are now threatening civilian objects, a tactic also seen in Ukraine, which risks escalating the conflict and making de-escalation harder.

Professor Gillespie warned that Iran appears to want a more indiscriminate and chaotic war to draw in additional countries and complicate any U.S. exit strategy. He rejected the notion that one side’s illegal actions justify reprisals, noting that international law prohibits such tit-for-tat violations.

On New Zealand’s potential involvement, he said the country was unlikely to commit ground troops but could contribute through intelligence sharing, logistical support or relieving allied vessels for patrols in the region. However, he cautioned that defending the strait might eventually require some presence on coastal areas to counter drones, vessels and mines, creating pressure that could evolve beyond initial assurances of “no boots on the ground.”

The professor also addressed Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, including longer-range systems and multiple re-entry vehicles, which have so far been used with restraint but could be deployed more aggressively. He noted that indiscriminate missile strikes on cities would themselves constitute war crimes.

The episode highlights the absence of clearly stated U.S. objectives — ranging from nuclear containment and missile threats to possible regime change and reopening the strait — which complicates predictions about the conflict’s duration and scope.

Global energy markets are already reacting, with analysts warning of prolonged price volatility if infrastructure attacks spread. Past conflicts in the region, including those in 1991, 2003 and 2022, have shown how damage to energy facilities can keep oil prices elevated for years.

The situation remains fluid, with the 48-hour deadline approaching and both sides trading increasingly severe threats. Diplomatic efforts appear limited, and multiple countries, including a group of 19 nations that recently issued a joint statement on protecting international waterways, are monitoring developments closely.

Professor Gillespie’s full interview is available on The Front Page podcast via the New Zealand Herald, Apple Podcasts, iHeart and other platforms. The conflict continues to evolve rapidly, with significant risks to regional stability, global energy supplies and civilian populations on all sides.