Under international law, hitting civilian infrastructure is prohibited.

Quibble. The oil depots are arguably strategic targets. Just like Ploesti in WWII. Power plants would -I think- qualify as civilian infrastructure. Though I would note that during Iraq I we saw several images of bridges being bombed, which arguably also were strategic as they would enable ground forces to move more freely.

I think if we aren't willing to destroy Kharg Island because it will affect oil prices, then we definitely shouldn't be there. If we're in a war, then whether an action affects our economy is irrelevant. We're trying to win, and crippling them economically is part of winning the war. But we aren't willing. It's just an action without an end-game plan, or what "winning" would even be. Sinking their navy, and crippling their air force is only a part of it. It's not enough to "win", to affect any real change.

This is just another excursion with no clear plan to "win", like Vietnam, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan...

Militarily we pretty much have won. But we're still going to lose because nothing will change, because they have no end-game plan. Heck, the regime is posting taunting Lego videos claiming his is the Felon's attempt to distract from the Epstein Files (just saw one today).