Case Explained:This article breaks down the legal background, charges, and implications of Case Explained: Trump threat to destroy Iran desalination plants would be war crime – Legal Perspective
by George Headley, Cronkite News
March 30, 2026
WASHINGTON – On Monday, President Donald Trump threatened to destroy all desalination plants in Iran.
Strikes on water infrastructure relied on by civilians would violate international law, legal experts say.
Unless a plant supplies water only to a military base, said Marko Milanovic, a professor of public international law at the University of Reading, ordering such a strike would be “manifestly unlawful.”
“Desalination plants are generally civilian objects, and as such protected from attack,” he said. “They also enjoy special protection as objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.”
Destroying infrastructure needed by civilians violates Article 54 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which lists “drinking water installations and supplies” as examples of targets that are off-limits.
But enforcing international laws of warfare against a U.S. president would be nearly impossible, legal scholars said.
And such prohibitions probably aren’t one of Trump’s considerations, said Robert Goldman, a law professor at American University who directs the school’s War Crimes Research Office and co-chairs the Academy of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law.
“This is not an administration that in any way feels restrained by international law,” he said, noting the difficulty to enforce arrest warrants against leaders of major nuclear powers like Russia.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, asked about the president’s threat to hit desalination plants, said the U.S. will act in “the confines of the law.”
“But with respect to achieving the full objectives of Operation Epic Fury, President Trump is going to move forward unabated, and he expects the Iranian regime to make a deal with the administration,” she told reporters.
Rule 154 of customary international humanitarian law states explicitly that military personnel have a duty to refuse a military order if it is unlawful. The U.S. is not involved in all treaties regarding international laws, although it does reflect some laws in its own legal language, according to the Congressional Research Service.
“In U.S. domestic law, you have the same rule by implication, in that the obligations to obey orders only apply to lawful orders,” said Ioannis Kalpouzos, a visiting professor of law at Harvard Law School.
Goldman predicted that anyone in a U.S. uniform who refuses an order to target an Iranian desalination plant would have no trouble finding a lawyer.
“He would have pro bono counsel from former judge advocate generals under Republicans and Democrats alike,” he said. “They would rush to his defense.”
That is just the sort of scenario Sen. Mark Kelly and five other Democrats in Congress, all veterans of the military or CIA, warned about when they posted a video Nov. 18 urging military personnel to refuse illegal orders.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Trump described the comments as treasonous. Hegseth ordered Kelly – a former Navy combat pilot and astronaut who retired at the rank of captain – demoted with a pension reduction as punishment.
None of the other lawmakers had served long enough to retire, so that form of punishment was not available to Hegseth.
Kelly sued and a judge blocked the demotion temporarily. The case is set for arguments in May in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
A federal grand jury refused to indict Kelly for sedition in February, a blow to Trump’s effort to punish him and an unusual rejection of prosecutors.
“It is clear both as a matter of international law and as a matter of U.S. domestic law that a soldier has a duty to refuse to obey an unlawful order,” Milanovic said.
Millions of Gulf state residents rely on drinking water from desalination plants, though only about 3% of Iran’s potable water is desalinated, according to Roohollah Noori, a researcher at the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health.
Residents along Iran’s coast rely most heavily on desalinated water.
“These rural communities and villagers … have struggled with having access to clean water during peacetime,” said institute director Kaveh Madani. “During war times, things would be much more catastrophic and problematic.”
Iran has already accused the U.S. of attacking a desalination plant March 7 on Qeshm Island, strategically located in the Strait of Hormuz. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the plant provides water to 30 villages, and called the attack “a blatant and desperate crime.”
“Attacking Iran’s infrastructure is a dangerous move with grave consequences,” Araghchi said on social media. “The U.S. set this precedent, not Iran.”
The U.S. denied attacking the plant, as did Israel.
The next day, Bahrain – where two-thirds of drinking water is produced through desalination – accused Iran of attacking one of its desalination plants. Another U.S. ally, Kuwait, said Monday that an Iranian attack on a power and desalination plant killed a worker and left “significant material damage.”
On March 21, Trump threatened to attack Iranian power plants if it didn’t open the Strait of Hormuz within two days. Madani said that would have a much wider civilian impact.
Iran threatened to retaliate with attacks on energy infrastructure and desalination plants belonging to U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf. Trump has not ordered such an attack so far.
Legal experts say international and U.S. law present no real obstacle if Trump is determined to order attacks on desalination plants.
U.S. law gives the commander-in-chief broad authority over the military. Congress can invoke the War Powers Resolution to limit his use of force and could in theory impeach him.
Some Democrats have already accused Trump of war crimes for capturing and deposing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and for lethal boat strikes in the Caribbean.
Iran and the U.S. are not among the 125 countries that joined the treaty that created the International Criminal Court. Nor is Israel, though the ICC still issued an arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2024 for alleged war crimes in Gaza.
Trump imposed sanctions in February against ICC judges and officials involved in war crimes investigations targeting the U.S. and Israel. The sanctions include a ban on travel to the U.S. and asset freezes.
This <a target=”_blank” href=” first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=” News</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=” Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=” style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>
<img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: ” urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/cronkitenews.azpbs.org/p.js”></script>