Case Explained:This article breaks down the legal background, charges, and implications of Case Explained: War crime or strategy? Trump’s threat to hit Iran’s power grid raises tough questions – Legal Perspective
If the U.S. military carries out President Donald Trump’s threats to strike Iranian power plants, and if Iran retaliates by hitting critical civilian infrastructure in other Middle Eastern countries, both sides could be guilty of war crimes, military experts say.
“It certainly has a feeling of ‘ready, fire, aim,’” Geoffrey Corn, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and former military lawyer who teaches at Texas Tech, told The Associated Press. “He overestimated his ability to control the events once he unleashed this torrent of violence.”
Over the weekend, Trump issued an ultimatum: Either Iran opened the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping channel, within 48 hours, or the U.S. would “obliterate” every Iranian power plant. After Iran threatened to retaliate by hitting generating facilities in nearby countries, including plants that supply electricity to American military bases, Trump said he would postpone any strikes on Iranian power plants and other energy infrastructure for five days amid what he described as productive talks.
But the question of whether such attacks would violate international law remain.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts.
Point phone camera here
Why legal experts raised concerns
Corn told the AP that if Trump decides to move forward with the strikes, military leaders could face a choice between obeying an order to carry out a war crime or refusing and facing criminal sanction for willful disobedience.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres also warned that attacks on energy infrastructure could carry legal consequences.
In an interview with Politico, Guterres said there are “reasonable grounds” to believe strikes “either on Iran or from Iran on energy infrastructure” could amount to war crimes.
“It doesn’t matter who targets civilians,” he said, calling such attacks “totally unacceptable.”
The laws of war do not automatically prohibit strikes on power plants. But legal experts told the AP that such attacks would have to deliver a military advantage that outweighs the expected civilian harm — a difficult standard when the facilities also supply homes, hospitals and other essential services.
Iran’s U.N. ambassador also warned the U.N. Security Council in a letter that deliberately targeting power plants would be inherently indiscriminate and a war crime, according to Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency.
How Trump and his team explained the threat
Trump’s threat followed several shifts in his public approach to the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of the global oil supply moves each year. Over the past week, he moved from trying to build a coalition and attempt diplomacy to lifting sanctions on some Iranian oil shipments to making direct threats against Iranian energy infrastructure.
Trump’s allies argued that the threat targeted infrastructure tied to Iran’s war effort. Mike Waltz, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., told Fox News that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard controls much of the country’s infrastructure and uses it to power the war effort. He identified gas-fired thermal plants and other facilities as possible targets.
However, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Yechiel Leiter, warned against an all-out assault on infrastructure.
“We want to leave everything in the country intact, so that the people who come after this regime are going to be able to rebuild and reconstitute,” he told CNN.
How Iran responded after Trump delayed the deadline
On Monday, Trump said he was postponing strikes on Iranian power plants and other energy infrastructure for five days after what he called “GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE” talks.
Iranian state media denied there were direct talks with Washington and described Trump’s move as a retreat, according to CBS. Iran’s Foreign Ministry said the delay was meant to lower energy prices and buy time for military planning.
CBS also reported that Iran’s National Defense Council warned that any strike on Iranian power plants would trigger retaliation against energy infrastructure across the Middle East and could lead to naval mines being placed across Persian Gulf routes.
What the dispute signals about the war
The dispute over the ultimatum has sharpened questions about the administration’s broader strategy. The AP reported that Trump and his allies say they anticipated Iran could block the strait, while critics argue the administration entered the conflict without a clear plan for what would come next.
The AP reported that Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said Trump was threatening Iran’s civil power plants because he had “no plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz,” while Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said Trump had “lost control of the war.” In an interview with ABC News, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., also questioned whether the United States could step back after helping create the conflict.
More than 3,200 people, including at least 214 children, have been killed in Iran since strikes by the U.S. and Israel began, the Human Rights Activists News Agency said.
Separately, CBS reported that the United Arab Emirates said Iranian strikes have killed eight people and wounded 161 others there since the war began. An estimated 14 people have been killed in Israel and about 1,000 in Lebanon, NBC News reported, citing the Red Crescent Society. Thirteen U.S. service members have died, and about 200 have been wounded.