Why Trump's Iran threats are raising war crimes concerns globally

Trump's warnings to target Iran's infrastructure have triggered legal scrutiny as experts say such threats may violate international humanitarian law and escalate risks of war crimes

"Open the Fu**in' Strait, you crazy bas***s, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH!" read a post by US President Donald Trump on Truth Social on Sunday, April 5. 

 

The expletives-laden post by the US President aimed at Iran has triggered global concern among legal experts and policymakers over possible violations of domestic and international laws of war. Trump has repeatedly warned Tehran of consequences if it fails to agree to his peace plan and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil route whose closure has been affecting the global supply chains. 

 

Here's what constitutes as a war crime and why Trump's threats fall under that category.

 

 

What threats has Trump made?

 

Trump has repeatedly threatened to “bomb Iran back to the Stone Age”, even saying that critical civilian infrastructure will be hit.

 

In one post on Truth Social on Sunday, Trump threatened to blow up Iran's power plants and bridges if it fails to negotiate a peace plan by Tuesday.

 

At a White House press briefing on Monday, Politico reporter Dasha Burns asked Trump whether any civilian targets were off limits in Iran. To this, Trump replied that he has a military plan where "every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12 o'clock tomorrow night, where every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding, and never to be used again" if his deadline is not met.

 

At the same briefing, Trump was asked if striking civilian infrastructure in Iran would be a war crime. He replied that the Iranian regime had killed more than 45,000 people in the last month.

 

Trump also rebuked a New York Times reporter who said that deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure violate the Geneva conventions and international law.

 

"Quiet. You no longer have credibility. You’re fake," Trump told the reporter.

 

"They're animals, and we have to stop them," he said.

 

What constitutes a war crime under international law?

 

Under international humanitarian law (IHL), particularly the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocol I (1977), attacks must distinguish between military targets and civilian objects. Article 48 establishes the principle of distinction, while Article 52 protects civilian infrastructure such as bridges and power plants unless they are used for military purposes. Trump’s statements about destroying “every bridge” and “every power plant” could therefore raise concerns under these provisions. 

 

Such sweeping threats may also fall under the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks (Article 51) and the principle of proportionality, which bars actions causing excessive civilian harm relative to military advantage. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), these rules form the core of customary international humanitarian law.

 

“Intentionally attacking civilian infrastructure such as power plants is generally prohibited. Even in the limited cases that they qualify as military targets, a party still cannot attack power plants if this may cause disproportionate harm to civilians," Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty International’s senior director of research, advocacy, policy and campaigns, was quoted as saying by The Guardian.

 

“Given that such power plants are essential for meeting the basic needs and livelihoods of tens of millions of civilians, attacking them would be disproportionate and thus unlawful under international humanitarian law, and could amount to a war crime,” she added.

 

Additionally, large-scale destruction not justified by military necessity, especially if linked to coercion or resource control such as “taking over the oil”, may qualify as a grave breach under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

 

Under US law, the War Crimes Act criminalises grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, including attacks on civilians and unlawful destruction of property.

 

Why are experts flagging concerns now?

 

Last week, more than 100 international law experts from leading US institutions warned that both the rhetoric and actions associated with the Iran conflict could amount to war crimes.

 

In a joint statement, the experts said US strikes and official statements raise “serious concerns” about violations of international humanitarian law.

 

Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also flagged concerns that targeting civilian infrastructure, especially essential services, could breach global legal norms.   

Similar concern is being raised by some Democratic leaders in the US. In a post on X, Senator Chuck Schumer said that Trump was “threatening possible war crimes".

  Independent Senator Bernie Sanders said Trump’s "ravings" are "dangerous". "Congress has got to act now. End this war," Sanders wrote in a post on X.

 

Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari, who is of Iranian descent, suggested invoking 25th Amendment to remove Trump from the presidency. “The President of the United States is a deranged lunatic, and a national security threat to our country and the rest of the world,” Ansari wrote in a social media post.

 

What next?

 

Trump has said he will not postpone his Tuesday deadline, and if Iran fails to agree to his terms by then, it faces “complete demolition” of its power plants and bridges.

 

Iran, meanwhile, appears defiant ahead of the Tuesday deadline. The country's Deputy Sports Minister Alireza Rahimi has called on artists and athletes to form human chains at power plants across the country on Tuesday, reiterating that attacking public infrastructure is a "war crime".