Donald Trump says Iran has “not suffered enough yet.”

Now a political scientist is warning that the president’s next escalation could produce catastrophic humanitarian consequences—and trigger the kind of backlash that makes the war even harder to end.

Trump told Axios that he was nearing a decision on what he described as a “massive attack,” potentially “bigger than ever before.”

He also claimed that the United States military was prepared to execute his plan at any moment.

The exact targets and scope of any proposed operation have not been publicly disclosed.

But Robert Pape, a political scientist who has studied air power and political violence, said Trump’s language may signal a shift toward deliberately imposing widespread suffering on Iran’s civilian population.

Pape focused particularly on Trump’s statement that Iran had not suffered enough.

That phrase, combined with earlier threats against power plants and other civilian infrastructure, led him to fear that the administration may be considering attacks designed to create broad economic and social disruption rather than limit damage to military targets.

“If mass punishment becomes the next escalation of the war, the obvious place to understand its consequences is Tehran,” Pape wrote in an analysis published on Substack.

Tehran is home to roughly 10 million people.

It is Iran’s political capital, economic center, communications hub and transportation crossroads.

An attack that severely damaged the city’s electrical infrastructure could therefore affect far more than government buildings or military facilities.

Electricity powers hospitals.

It keeps water-treatment systems operating.

It runs telecommunications networks.

It supports refrigeration for food and medicine.

It keeps traffic systems, elevators, banking networks and emergency services functioning.

Removing that power from a modern city would not merely turn off lights.

It could destabilize nearly every system required for civilian survival.

“The humanitarian consequences are almost unimaginable,” Pape wrote.

He argued that the strategic consequences could be even more significant.

Trump may believe inflicting greater pain will force Iran’s leaders to surrender or accept American terms.

But Pape said history suggests that attacks causing widespread civilian suffering rarely produce rapid political capitulation when a government believes its survival is at stake.

Instead, such attacks can harden resistance.

“Punishment tends to deepen popular anger, strengthen elite resolve, and create overwhelming incentives for retaliation,” he wrote.

That warning directly challenges the logic behind escalation.

The administration appears to believe that Iran has not responded to existing military pressure because that pressure has been insufficient.

The proposed solution, therefore, would be more destruction.

Larger strikes.

More valuable targets.

Greater pain.

But the same strategy may produce the opposite of the intended result.

Iranian leaders could present attacks on civilian infrastructure as proof that the United States is waging war against the Iranian population rather than merely against the government.

That could weaken internal opposition to the regime.

Citizens who dislike their leaders may still rally against a foreign attacker.

Political divisions could narrow.

Hard-line factions could gain influence.

Calls for compromise could be portrayed as betrayal.

The administration might then face a more unified and more determined enemy than before.

Pape’s warning carries particular weight because he previously taught officers at the U.S. Air Force’s School of Advanced Airpower Studies.

He noted that American air strategy in recent decades has generally moved away from systematically targeting civilian energy production.

That shift reflected both humanitarian concerns and strategic experience.

Destroying power plants can create enormous suffering without necessarily weakening a government’s ability or willingness to continue fighting.

In some cases, civilian populations absorb the majority of the damage while military forces adapt, relocate or retain protected backup systems.

Trump’s explicit threats against power infrastructure have therefore alarmed analysts who fear the United States may abandon those lessons.

The danger extends far beyond Tehran.

Iran could retaliate against American military installations across the Middle East.

U.S. forces are stationed in countries including Iraq, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Many of those bases are within range of Iranian missiles or drones.

Iran-aligned armed groups could also strike U.S. personnel, embassies, commercial shipping or allied governments.

Israel could face additional attacks.

Energy infrastructure throughout the Persian Gulf could become a target.

Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz could be further disrupted.

A strike intended to demonstrate overwhelming American power could therefore trigger a regional chain reaction.

Each side would claim it was responding to the previous escalation.

Washington would strike Iranian infrastructure.

Iran would attack American bases or allied facilities.

The United States would retaliate again.

The cycle could continue without either government accepting responsibility for expanding the war.

“Turning off the lights is easy,” Pape wrote.

“Living with what comes next—for Iranians, Americans, Israelis, and the countries hosting U.S. forces across the region—is far harder.”

Trump’s statement that Iran had not suffered enough also raises a fundamental moral question.

Military operations are normally justified as necessary to achieve defined security objectives.

The goal may be to destroy a weapons system, defend troops, prevent an attack or degrade an enemy’s military capacity.

Suffering is an expected and tragic consequence—not supposed to be the objective itself.

When a president describes the enemy population as insufficiently punished, critics may reasonably question whether civilian pain has become part of the strategy.

International humanitarian law requires combatants to distinguish between military and civilian targets.

It also prohibits attacks expected to cause excessive civilian harm relative to the anticipated military advantage.

Power systems can occupy a legally complex category because electricity may support both civilian life and military operations.

A power plant supplying a military command center may have strategic value.

The same plant may also supply hospitals and drinking-water systems.

An attack can therefore create enormous indirect consequences even when the facility has some military function.

The supplied report does not establish which facilities Trump may be considering or whether Pentagon planners have evaluated their legality.

It also does not confirm that a final decision has been made.

Trump said he was “close” to deciding.

That may be an attempt to pressure Iran in negotiations rather than a promise that attacks are imminent.

Presidents sometimes make dramatic public threats to create uncertainty or force concessions.

But threatening mass destruction carries risks even when the threat is not carried out.

Iran may assume an attack is coming and launch a preemptive response.

Military units on both sides may move into higher alert.

A false alarm or misinterpreted radar signal could trigger action.

Diplomatic channels may collapse because each side believes negotiation is merely cover for an imminent strike.

Trump’s rhetoric also arrives during an already unpopular war.

The conflict has reportedly caused the deaths of more than a dozen American service members.

Oil prices have risen.

Gasoline and diesel costs are placing additional pressure on households and businesses.

Trump’s approval ratings have weakened.

An attack on Tehran’s infrastructure could intensify every one of those problems.

Iran could respond by targeting oil facilities or shipping routes, pushing energy prices higher.

American forces could suffer additional casualties.

A humanitarian disaster could damage U.S. standing around the world.

Allied governments may struggle to defend continued cooperation with Washington if civilian harm becomes overwhelming.

Domestic opposition could deepen as voters ask what the new escalation is supposed to accomplish.

Trump has repeatedly promised strength, victory and a quick resolution.

But each escalation appears to create another reason the war cannot end.

The administration may fear that stopping now would look like defeat.

Iran may fear that accepting American demands would threaten the regime’s survival.

Both sides therefore have incentives to continue even when continuation imposes enormous costs.

Pape’s analysis suggests that attacking civilian infrastructure would make this trap even worse.

The suffering might be immediate.

The political result could be the opposite of surrender.

Iranian leaders could become more determined.

The public could become more hostile toward the United States.

Retaliatory attacks could spread across the region.

American leaders would then face pressure to escalate again.

The administration’s defenders may argue that Iran has already attacked American personnel, allied countries and energy infrastructure.

They may say a larger strike is necessary to restore deterrence.

From that perspective, failing to respond forcefully could encourage further aggression.

Trump may also believe that a devastating demonstration of American capability could convince Iranian leaders that continued resistance is futile.

That outcome is possible.

Military power can influence negotiations.

But the scale and nature of the target matter.

A carefully limited strike against military capabilities is different from disabling electricity for millions of civilians.

The former may weaken an opponent’s ability to fight.

The latter may simply create rage, suffering and pressure for revenge.

There is also no guarantee that destroying infrastructure would quickly end Iran’s military operations.

The government and armed forces may possess backup systems, hardened facilities and emergency plans.

Civilian neighborhoods may lose power before command bunkers do.

Hospitals may fail while missile units remain operational.

The population could suffer more than the leadership Trump intends to pressure.

That is the central strategic problem with collective punishment.

It often harms people who have the least influence over government decisions.

Ordinary Iranian families did not decide the country’s military strategy.

They do not control missile launches or nuclear negotiations.

Yet they would endure the immediate consequences of widespread power loss.

Children, older adults and patients requiring medical equipment would be particularly vulnerable.

Water shortages, food spoilage and disruptions to sanitation could spread disease.

Transportation failures could prevent emergency workers from reaching those in need.

The damage could continue long after the bombing stopped.

Electrical grids are complicated systems.

Destroying key facilities can lead to cascading failures that take months or years to repair, particularly during a continuing war.

Replacement equipment may be difficult to obtain under sanctions.

Technicians may be unable to reach damaged sites.

Repeated attacks could prevent reconstruction.

The result would not be a temporary blackout.

It could become a sustained collapse of urban life.

Trump’s language suggests he sees suffering as leverage.

Pape sees it as a path toward uncontrolled escalation.

The difference between those views may determine the future of the war.

A president can authorize an attack within minutes.

He cannot control everything that follows.

He cannot guarantee Iran’s response.

He cannot prevent every proxy group from acting.

He cannot force energy markets to remain calm.

He cannot bring back soldiers or civilians killed during retaliation.

And he cannot easily rebuild the diplomatic trust destroyed by an attack on a city of 10 million people.

The military may be ready.

That does not mean the strategy is.

Trump says he is close to a decision.

Pape’s warning is that the decision will not end when the missiles land.

That is when the consequences begin.