Trump Issues Deadline for Iran to Reopen Strait of Hormuz, Threatens Widespread Strikes

The threat was delivered without Pentagon caveats or legal qualifiers.

Standing in the White House briefing room on Monday, President Donald Trump described a plan he said could “decimate” every bridge in Iran by the following night and leave “every power plant in Iran … out of business, burning, exploding and never to be used again.” He tied that warning to a public ultimatum: Iran had until 8 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday, April 7, to agree to reopen the Strait of Hormuz under a U.S.-backed deal, or face unspecified but sweeping military action.

Within hours an adviser to Iran’s parliament speaker fired back online, saying Tehran had already “won the war” and warning that it was Mr. Trump who had “about 20 hours to either surrender to Iran or his allies will return to the Stone Age.” The exchanges, conducted from podiums and social media rather than behind closed negotiating tables, underscored how the confrontation over the world’s most important oil chokepoint has become a contest of ultimatums — with both sides invoking the image of sending the other “back to the Stone Age.”

A public deadline for war or deal

Mr. Trump made the remarks during an April 6 news conference in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, where he appeared alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chair Dan Caine.

“We have a plan because of the power of our military, where every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12 o’clock tomorrow night, where every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding and never to be used again,” Mr. Trump said. “The entire country can be taken out in one night, and that night might be tomorrow night.”

He said Iran must accept a deal by 8 p.m. Tuesday to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman that carries roughly one-fifth of the world’s seaborne oil exports, or face the consequences he described.

Mr. Hegseth, who the administration says has overseen the U.S. campaign of air and missile strikes inside Iran since late February, amplified the sense of a looming escalation. “Per the president’s direction, today will be the largest volume of strikes since day one of this operation,” he told reporters. “Tomorrow, even more than today.”

Mr. Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “back to the Stone Ages” in recent days to describe the potential effect of U.S. strikes on Iranian infrastructure. What changed on Monday was the specificity: a clock time, a date and a granular description of targets.

Tehran’s counter‑ultimatum

Iran’s first public reply did not come from its foreign minister or president but from Mahdi Mohammadi, described in Iranian and international reports as an adviser to parliament speaker Mohammad‑Bagher Ghalibaf. In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Mohammadi mocked the U.S. deadline and flipped the president’s “Stone Age” line back toward Washington and its allies.

“It is Trump who has about 20 hours to either surrender to Iran or his allies will return to the Stone Age. We will not back down! Iran has clearly and overtly won the war …,” he wrote, according to translations circulated by news organizations.

The comment reflected how Iranian officials have presented the conflict to their domestic audience: as proof that Iran can withstand and respond to U.S. and Israeli strikes. Tehran has framed its missile and drone attacks on Israel and Gulf states, and its disruption of shipping near Hormuz, as evidence of resilience.

Iran has rejected a draft 45-day cease-fire proposal being circulated by mediators, including Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey. That framework reportedly calls for an initial pause in hostilities and steps toward reopening Hormuz, followed by negotiations on a longer-term settlement. Iranian officials say they will not reopen the strait under a temporary truce and have instead sent a 10‑point response via mediators demanding stronger guarantees.

A regional war at a global chokepoint

The conflict, now entering its sixth week according to regional and Western reporting, began with large-scale U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets around Feb. 28. Since then Iran has launched salvos of missiles and drones at Israel and at infrastructure in several Gulf states, while U.S. and Israeli forces have struck Iranian cities, energy facilities and military sites.

On April 6, the same day as the White House briefing, Israeli strikes damaged parts of Iran’s South Pars gas and petrochemical complex, one of the world’s largest energy developments. Iranian state media and Israeli officials also reported that Majid Khademi, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ intelligence arm, was killed in an earlier strike.

Humanitarian agencies and local authorities report thousands of casualties across the region. In Iran alone, media tallies drawing on hospital and government figures have cited more than 1,900 people killed. In Lebanon, where Iran-backed Hezbollah has been heavily involved in the fighting, more than a million people have been displaced, according to aid groups. Those numbers remain provisional and contested.

The Strait of Hormuz runs between Iran to the north and Oman and the United Arab Emirates to the south. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that roughly 20 percent of global seaborne crude oil and condensate exports pass through the channel, along with large volumes of liquefied natural gas from Qatar. Since Iran began threatening or halting ship traffic near the strait, oil prices have spiked, major shipping firms have rerouted vessels, and insurers have raised war‑risk premiums for tankers entering the Gulf.

Legal and humanitarian red lines

Mr. Trump’s threats to destroy bridges and power plants across Iran have drawn warnings from the United Nations and international law experts.

Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson for U.N. Secretary‑General António Guterres, said that even where infrastructure might qualify as a military objective, an attack could be unlawful if it risks “excessive incidental civilian harm.” Legal scholars note that under international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, parties must distinguish between military and civilian objects, ensure any anticipated civilian harm is not disproportionate to the direct military advantage, and take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian suffering.

Power plants, bridges, water systems and communications networks are often dual‑use, serving both military and civilian needs. Targeting them on a nationwide scale — especially with the stated aim of putting “every power plant in Iran … out of business” — would almost certainly inflict severe and long‑lasting harm on civilian life, affecting hospitals, sewage treatment, heating and other essentials. Several experts have warned that, depending on how strikes were carried out and justified, such operations could amount to war crimes.

Diplomacy in the shadow of threats

Despite the sharp rhetoric, diplomatic efforts continue. Pakistan’s military and civilian leadership have played an unusually prominent role, hosting discussions on what has been described as a two‑tiered plan: a 45‑day cease‑fire tied to reopening Hormuz, followed by negotiations on broader political and security issues. Egypt and Turkey have also been involved in shuttling messages, while U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff has been in contact with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi through back channels, according to people briefed on the talks.

For now, public statements from both Washington and Tehran appear designed as much for domestic audiences as for negotiators across the table. Mr. Trump’s stark warnings come amid intense political scrutiny at home over the costs and risks of another major Middle Eastern war. Iranian leaders, facing economic strain and internal dissent, have used the language of victory and defiance to rally support.

What happens after 8 p.m. Tuesday — whether the deadline yields a deal, a quiet extension or a new wave of strikes on the scale the president outlined — will test how much of that language is bluff and how much is a blueprint.