Trump statements about Iran raise questions about international law
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s recent statements of intent about his administration’s plans for Iran — some laced with profanity, some threatening deeply destructive, nation-shattering actions — have raised questions about international law.
Here’s a short breakdown of some of the issues at play.
Could this raise war crimes questions?
In his news conference on Monday, Trump threatened to blow up every bridge and power plant in Iran, an action that would be so far-reaching that some experts in military law said it could constitute a war crime. The issue could turn on whether the power plants were legitimate military targets, whether the attacks were proportional compared with what Iran has done and whether civilian casualties were minimized.
Trump’s threat did not seem to account for the harm to civilians, prompting Democrats in Congress, some U.N. officials and scholars in military law to say such strikes would violate international law.
The president’s eventual actions often fall short of his all-encompassing rhetoric in the moment, but his warnings about the power plants and bridges were unambiguous both on Sunday and Monday as he set a deadline of Tuesday night for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump said Monday that he’s “not at all” concerned about committing war crimes as he continues to threaten destruction. He also warned that every power plant will be “burning, exploding and never to be used again.”
He followed up Tuesday morning with this threat on Truth Social: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.” Trump pulled back on that threat Tuesday night, and Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said it had accepted a two-week ceasefire.
Last month, shortly after the war started, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said there would be “no stupid rules of engagement, no nation building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win and we don’t waste time or lives.”
What the U.N. and experts say about Trump’s words
A spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres on Monday warned that attacking such infrastructure is banned under international law.
“Even if specific civilian infrastructure were to qualify as a military objective,” Stephane Dujarric said, an attack would still be prohibited if it risks “excessive incidental civilian harm.”
Rachel VanLandingham, a Southwestern Law School professor who served as a judge advocate general in the U.S. Air Force, said civilians are likely to die if power is cut to hospitals and water treatment plans. “What Trump is saying is, ‘We don’t care about precision, we don’t care about impact on civilians, we’re just going to take out all of Iranian power generating capacity,’” the retired lieutenant colonel said.
Shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint in the Persian Gulf through which 20% of the world’s oil normally flows, has been all but halted, sending oil prices soaring and roiling the stock market.
Under the U.N. Charter, nations are only permitted to use force against another nation if it has been authorized by the Security Council or in self-defense, said Marieke de Hoon, an associate professor of international criminal law at the University of Amsterdam.
What Trump is threatening to attack
As the conflict has entered its second month, Trump has escalated his warnings to bomb Iran’s infrastructure, including Kharg Island, central to Iran’s oil industry, and desalination plants that provide drinking water.
In a Truth Social post on March 30, Trump warned that the U.S. would obliterate “all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet ‘touched.’”
On Easter Sunday, Trump threatened in an expletive-laden post that Iran will face “Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one,” while adding that “you’ll be living in Hell” unless the strait reopens.
“This strikes me as clearly a threat of unlawful action,” said Michael Schmitt, a professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College and an international law professor at the University of Reading in Britain.
A power facility can be attacked under the laws of armed conflict if it provides electricity to a military base in addition to civilians, Schmitt said. But the strike must not “cause disproportionate harm to the civilian population, and you’ve done everything to minimize that harm.”
Harm does not include inconvenience or fear, said Schmitt, who has taught military commanders. But it does mean severe mental suffering, physical injury or illness.
___
Associated Press journalists Ben Finley, Lindsay Whitehurst, Gary Fields and Mike Corder contributed to this report.