President Donald Trump has threatened strikes on civilian infrastructure in Iran in recent days and falsely claimed Monday the strikes would not be considered war crimes because of Iran’s actions—raising new scrutiny about the U.S. violating international law in Iran, though Trump and other officials are unlikely to face any near-term consequences.Trump threatened over the weekend to bomb power plants and bridges in Iran—warning the country could “be living in hell” if it doesn’t open the Strait of Hormuz—and said Wednesday he wanted to send Iranians “back to the Stone Ages, where they belong.”When asked Monday why attacking infrastructure would not be considered a war crime, Trump pointed to the Iranian government killing thousands of people, including protesters, calling them “animals” and arguing the U.S. has “to stop them.”His comments have renewed concerns among legal experts, after more than 100 international law experts previously signed an open letter last week expressing “profound concern” the military’s actions in Iran and comments by public officials could constitute “potential war crimes.”War crimes are breaches of international law, particularly as outlined in the Geneva Conventions, that prevent the use of unrestrained violence or hostility during conflicts—including destroying property when it is “not justified by military necessity,” and intentionally “attacking civilian objects”—and civilian strikes are considered war crimes even when retaliating against another country’s atrocities.The White House has not yet responded to a request for comment, but White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has previously said the Trump administration “will always act within the confines of the law,” though Trump also told The New York Times in January he “do[esn’t] need international law” and was constrained only by “my own morality.”There are several ways that Trump and other officials could be held accountable for any war crimes, including prosecutions by other countries and future presidential administrations, though legal experts told Agence France-Presse any prosecutions would likely be a long way off.When Would Iranian Strikes Be Considered War Crimes?Militaries are allowed to carry out strikes against targets “which, by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action” and whose destruction “offers a definite military advantage,” as outlined by the Department of Defense. That means strikes aren’t allowed against civilian infrastructure that doesn’t offer any tactical benefit to the military. The issue gets trickier when it comes to infrastructure that serves civilians but could also benefit the military, like power plants that provide power for civilians but also military operations. In those cases, militaries are directed to consider how “proportionate” the military benefit is versus the potential harm it could cause for civilians, and avoid “act[ing] in a way that is unreasonable or excessive.” Militaries must also take precautions to avoid putting civilians in harm’s way. Legal experts have broadly argued the U.S. carrying out strikes against primarily civilian infrastructure, as Trump has threatened, would likely violate international law under that definition. Trump referencing the “Stone Age” suggests the military is targeting objects “seemingly because they contribute to the viability of a modern society in Iran, which is completely unrelated to the question of contribution to military action,” Stanford Law School professor Tom Dannenbaum told Agence France-Presse.is Retaliating Against Iran’s Attacks A War Crime?Trump using Iran’s actions to justify attacking civilian infrastructure in Iran does not shield any of the U.S.’s attacks from being considered war crimes, even if Iran committed war crimes itself. “One of the things that's well settled in international law is that a violation by one side does not justify a violation on the other side,” Gabor Rona, Director of the Law and Armed Conflict Project at Cardozo Law School, told NPR. Legal experts noted in Just Security there are some very limited conditions in which “reprisal” attacks that would otherwise violate the law may be allowed, as limited, last-resort tactics in order to persuade the other side to stop their own violations of international law. Such “reprisal” attacks cannot be carried out for the purpose of retaliation, however, and Just Security notes “it would be difficult to conclude” the conditions for such an attack have been met in the case of Trump’s attacks on Iran.Are Trump’s Threats A Crime?Trump merely threatening to attack infrastructure in Iran could itself be considered a war crime, legal experts have noted, as international law prohibits “threats of violence” that are meant to “spread terror among” civilians. “It is difficult to read President Trump’s egregious threats of great destruction as anything but intending to spread terror,” military law experts Margaret Donovan and Rachel VanLandingham wrote in Just Security.
Hegseth’s Comments Under Scrutiny: ‘no Quarters’In addition to Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has also come under scrutiny for advocating in favor of lethal force in Iran, saying in March the U.S. would fight “all on our terms” with “no stupid rules of engagement.” Legal experts have particularly criticized Hegseth for saying the military “will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.” A “no quarter” order means to attack enemy soldiers even when they’re wounded or surrender, and international law states it is “expressly forbidden” to “declare that no quarter will be given.” In their Just Security open letter, more than 100 legal experts argued, “Hegseth’s statement likely violates international humanitarian law as well as the U.S. War Crimes statute.”
Will Trump Face Consequences If He Commits A War Crime?
The primary body that prosecutes war crimes is the International Criminal Court—but Trump and any other U.S. officials would not face charges there for any actions in Iran, as the U.S. and Iran are not parties to the ICC and thus can’t face prosecution there. There are still a few ways that Trump, Hegseth or anyone who carries out unlawful strikes could be held legally liable for any war crimes, including through special tribunals that are set up to prosecute war crimes for a specific conflict. In those cases, charges would likely be brought by another country against the U.S. Officials could also be prosecuted in the U.S. for violating the federal law prohibiting war crimes, though the Supreme Court has ruled Trump cannot be held criminally liable for any of his official acts as president. Legal experts told Agence France-Presse they don’t expect any prosecutions to come in the near term, given the fact Trump’s DOJ wouldn’t prosecute itself and no other country has shown a willingness to bring international charges. There’s no statute of limitations for war crimes, however, making it possible consequences could come in the future.
#BTCBackTo70K #AppleRemovesBitchatFromChinaAppStore DriftInvestigationLinksRecentAttackToNorthKoreanHackers#AnthropicBansOpenClawFromClaude #USNFPExceededExpectations #USJoblessClaimsNearTwo-YearLow