Is Trump’s Iran threatening and attacking with war crimes? What is international law – National
US President Donald Trump’s announcement late on Tuesday to end the two-week war against Iran appears to have narrowly avoided threats that international legal experts say could amount to war crimes if carried out.
The ceasefire came less than two hours before a Tuesday evening deadline set by Trump, who had warned earlier in the day that “the whole civilization will die tonight” if Iran fails to make a deal that includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
That message came after he threatened to blow up all bridges and power plants in Iran and vowed to blast the country “into the Stone Age, when it belongs to you.”
Despite the retreat of the threat – at least for now – international law and Pentagon policy suggest that Trump’s escalating threats themselves may violate the laws of war.
If a widespread attack against Iran’s “civilization” and public infrastructure were to happen, experts and former military members added, it would be a “clear” war crime – a concern Trump dismissed at a press conference on Monday.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday made it clear that the military is ready to follow through on Trump’s threat if a deal is not reached, and has a list of targets including power plants, bridges and energy infrastructure that Iran “cannot defend.”
“We were locked and loaded,” he told reporters. “President Trump had the power to cripple Iran’s entire economy in minutes, but he chose mercy.”
White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt defended Trump’s comments on Wednesday while celebrating the ceasefire as a “victory” for the US.
“I understand the questions about the president’s speech, but what the president cares about the most is the results, and in fact, his strong speech and his strong negotiating style are what led you all to testify today,” he told the media.
Jason Dempsey, a U.S. military veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and later as special assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under former U.S. president Barack Obama, called Trump’s dismissal and remarks “horrendous.”
“There is nothing good to say about this, and it is a deliberate rejection of even the pretense of trying to hold onto the moral high ground,” he said.
What is international law?
Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, told reporters on Monday that attacks on public infrastructure are prohibited under international law.
“Even if certain civilian infrastructure qualifies as a military target,” he said, “international humanitarian law will still prohibit attacks on them if they are expected to cause excessive civilian casualties.”
That principle was laid down in the 1949 Geneva Conventions that established international humanitarian law. All countries, including the United States, have signed those agreements.
However, the US has never adopted the 1977 additional protocol at the conferences, which specifically prohibits the attack or destruction of anything considered “essential to the survival of civilians,” including agriculture, drinking water, infrastructure and other essentials.
Get daily world news
Get daily Canadian news delivered to your inbox so you never miss the top stories of the day.
The additional protocol also prohibits threats of widespread violence that would spread fear among civilians.
However, the US Department of Defense manual of military regulations expressly forbids such threats.
“Measures of intimidation or terrorism against civilians are prohibited, including acts or threats of violence, the main purpose of which is to spread fear among citizens,” the manual, which is scheduled for review in 2023, said.
Iranians inside the country and abroad in countries like Canada reacted with fear to Trump’s speech.
The Pentagon letter also acknowledges that the US military is often called upon to respect the rules of an international agreement whether it or an adversary is a party to it, “because this agreement represents the ‘idea of the international community’ about how military operations should be conducted.”
Robert Goldman, a professor of international law and human rights at American University, said it’s “very difficult right now to cut off threats,” noting that previous presidents have used a “carrot and stick” approach to rhetoric.
“You have to consider the source,” he added. “This man (Trump) is not a traditional president. This man is not a politician, if we put it correctly.”
If Trump were to attack civilian infrastructure the way he threatened to this week, Goldman said, “I would have no problem reaching the conclusion that we are dealing with destruction of property and we would be looking at war crimes.”
“This approach seems to be motivated by indifference, revenge,” he added. “That is destruction for the sake of destruction: ‘You will not do what I tell you, I will remove your power to function as a kingdom.’ That is not allowed.”
Has the war in Iran seen war crimes?
War crimes are generally defined as “serious” violations of international law, including the Geneva Conventions, according to bodies such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court and the International Red Cross.
The Pentagon’s law of war manual notes that “longstanding US military doctrine” is to define war crimes as “any violation of the laws of war.”
In an open letter earlier this month, more than 100 international legal experts in the US said there are “serious concerns about violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including possible war crimes” by the Trump administration.
The launch of the war itself, they argued, violated the United Nations Charter because Iran was not an imminent threat – something Prime Minister Mark Carney has also suggested. The Trump administration has opposed this on conflicting grounds.
A number of international law and UN experts have suggested that the strike on a girls’ school in Iran on the first day of the war, which killed at least 175 civilians – most of them schoolchildren – may be a violation of international law.
The US military’s initial investigation into the strike on the school, which was located near a base of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Naval Forces (IRGC), found that it may have occurred due to outdated intelligence and was not targeted, the Associated Press reported.
However, there is legal analysis that suggests that some “mistakes” in war can and should be prosecuted for failing to prevent them.
Human Rights Watch, in calling for a war crimes investigation into the strike, reiterated the same principle highlighted by the UN and other experts such as Goldman: that the destruction of military targets must be weighed against “unreasonable” harm to people and their infrastructure.
Even “dual-use” infrastructure used by the military and civilians must be analyzed in the same way, experts say.
Both international law experts in their book and Human Rights Watch warned that US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has “deliberately and systematically weakened” protections aimed at ensuring that US forces comply with international law.
Those steps include removing or replacing the top military attorneys and general judge attorneys who provide oversight of combat operations, they said.
Those experts expressed concern about Hegseth’s comments during the Iran war, such as calling the rules of engagement “stupid” at a March 2 press conference where he said the rules could hinder the ability to “fight for victory.”
René Provost, a professor of international law at McGill University, said it is important for the United States to cooperate with all countries in upholding those laws.
“These values did not come from evildoers who thought that the world should be a good place where bad things don’t happen,” he said. “Also, the laws we have are built on the ruins of the Second World War and acknowledging that no one comes out victorious when there are no laws.
“This seems to be lost on decision makers in the United States.”
Who is responsible for accountability?
Goldman explained that determining war crimes involves not only assessing the consequences of an attack, but also “what those who planned the attack knew at the time” – in other words, whether they knew beforehand that it would violate international law.
That would require an investigation and ultimately prosecution by the country’s government or an international court.
The US is not affiliated with the International Criminal Court, which would lead such an investigation. The Trump administration has sanctioned several ICC officials — including judges — for investigating both the Israeli military’s attack on Gaza and the conduct of American troops during the war in Afghanistan.
Many signatories to the ICC, including Canada, have recognized the idea of a “universal jurisdiction,” which would allow states to prosecute crimes outside their borders.
Carney said on Tuesday that all Iran’s warring parties need to respect international law, including “not targeting, civilians, or civilian infrastructure,” but he did not directly criticize Trump.
Errol Mendes, a professor at the University of Ottawa who has served as a visiting attorney at the ICC, said the road to accountability could take years and may not happen until Trump leaves office, but it is worth pursuing. He cited the ICC prosecution of Serbian president Slobodan Milošević as an example.
“I am not saying that (it will happen) today or tomorrow, next year or in the next five, 10 years,” he said. “But I think that for the benefit of humanity, it is important that the leaders of our country and others first say that it is time, it is time to put it in black and white.”
The US Congress could also investigate, and domestic military courts or the US Department of Justice could pursue prosecution, although Goldman says that seems unlikely in the short term, given the current political climate in the US.
Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche told reporters on Tuesday that the department had provided legal guidance to the administration throughout the war, but did not say whether Trump had been following it.
