As Trump threatens to commit war crimes in Iran, his ‘own morality’ is nowhere to be found
Power plants, desalination stations, oil wells, roads, bridges and other infrastructure.
They are the foundations of civilian life in Iran, and their destruction by American and Israeli forces would cause widespread suffering among the country’s 93 million people — and in most cases would be considered a war crime under international law.
Yet President Trump has repeatedly threatened to do exactly that, with the aim of sending Iran “back to the Stone Ages, where they belong,” as he put it in a speech on Wednesday.
On Easter weekend, he wrote online that “all Hell will reign down” on the Iranians unless they met a deadline of Monday to make concessions or open up the Strait of Hormuz to ship traffic, adding, “Glory be to GOD!”
The president was emphatic about the targets in a follow-up post: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell — JUST WATCH. Praise be to Allah.”
He is talking not just about civilian sites with military uses, which can be considered legitimate targets. In his speech on Wednesday, he said he would “hit each and every one” of the country’s power plants, “probably simultaneously.” The next day, after the American military destroyed a large bridge near Tehran, Iran’s capital, he exulted on social media: “Much more to follow!” At least 13 civilians were killed and 95 injured, an Iranian official said.
No other recent American president has talked so openly about committing potential war crimes, legal experts, historians and former U.S. officials say. Wartime American presidents and their aides have usually insisted they were trying to follow international and U.S. military law, even if they violated it in some cases.
International laws aimed at preventing the horrors of total war are codified in a series of agreements, including the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, the Nuremberg Principles and the United Nations Charter. Deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure violate those. So does pillaging a country, which Mr. Trump has suggested he might do by taking Iran’s oil.
The Trump administration’s language and actions could have far-reaching consequences. Within Iran, it is likely to galvanize opposition to the United States, including among some ordinary Iranians who have protested their own government.
“I don’t believe that Iranians have rallied around a deeply unpopular regime, but the destruction of infrastructure and rising civilian casualties strengthen the regime’s narrative that this is a war on the nation, not just its rulers,” said Karim Sadjadpour, a scholar of Iran at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
On the global stage, it could further diminish America’s standing and weaken norms of state conduct in wartime that are intended to protect civilians. Legal experts say those norms have eroded in recent years because of Russia’s war in Ukraine, the Sudanese civil war and the war against Hamas in Gaza by Israel, which is now invading Lebanon and attacking Iran with the United States.
The American president has been unambiguous in his disdain for international law. In a two-hour Oval Office interview in January with The New York Times, Mr. Trump declared, “I don’t need international law.” When asked whether there was any limit on his global powers, he said, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality.” [Continue reading…]
The United States and Israel initiated strikes on Iran over one month ago, on February 28, 2026. The attack was a clear violation of the United Nations Charter. The conduct of the war, and statements of U.S. officials, also raise serious concerns about violations of international humanitarian law, including potential war crimes. We have written the below statement together with over 100 U.S.-based international law experts, to detail our profound concerns about the war. The letter is signed by international law experts across the United States, including senior professors; leaders of prominent international law associations, non-governmental organizations, and legal clinics; former government legal advisors; and military law experts and former Judge Advocates General (JAGs). [Continue reading…]