U.S. Military Rejecting Iranian Civilian Targets Proposed By Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth They Deem To Be ‘Illegal’
A retired U.S. general says some military planners may already be pushing back against political pressure to expand targets in Iran, as legal concerns grow over striking civilian infrastructure.
Randy Manner, a retired major general, said in a televised interview that he has heard accounts of internal resistance within U.S. Central Command. According to Manner, planners are avoiding unlawful targets by redirecting strike proposals toward legitimate military objectives.
“The military is already saying no,” Manner told MSNOW, describing what he called a “quiet resistance” within the command structure.
Manner said officers are trying to balance lawful conduct with the risk of professional consequences in a politically charged environment. His comments come as President Donald Trump has intensified public threats against Iran, including statements suggesting the U.S. could target infrastructure such as bridges and power facilities if Tehran does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Legal experts say those remarks alone may carry weight under international law. “Threats intended to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited,” one expert told Axios.
Inside the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has aligned policy with Trump’s more aggressive stance, according to multiple reports. At the same time, some senior military legal officials have been removed or sidelined, raising concerns about how targeting decisions are being reviewed.
The debate is especially sharp around so-called dual-use infrastructure. Facilities such as energy grids and desalination plants can support both civilian life and military operations. Targeting them may offer strategic advantages but also risks violating the laws of war, which prohibit attacks that disproportionately harm civilians.
Analysts say thousands of targets tied to Iran’s missile systems, naval forces and command structures have already been struck.
But as those targets become more limited, pressure is mounting to widen the scope. That shift has intensified internal debates about legality and long-term consequences, including the risk of international backlash.
Manner suggested that, for now, some officers are drawing a line. “They’re substituting other targets,” he said, referring to efforts to keep operations within legal bounds.
While the Pentagon has not publicly addressed those claims, the situation highlights a broader tension between civilian leadership and military professionals trained to follow the law of armed conflict.