President Donald Trump’s threats to target Iran’s power plants and bridges have drawn public alarm from legal experts and U.N. officials, who said the approach could run afoul of the laws governing armed conflict. In a news conference Monday, Trump said action could include blowing up every bridge and power plant in Iran, language that multiple experts said was so broad it did not appear to account for civilian harm.
The warnings landed as Trump reiterated a deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz by Tuesday night, and as shipping in the chokepoint—through which 20% of the world’s oil normally flows—remained all but halted, sending oil prices higher and roiling markets. The threat also raised questions about how international law treats attacks on infrastructure that can serve both civilian and military functions.
A spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Stephane Dujarric, said Monday that attacking power and other infrastructure is prohibited under international law. Dujarric said that even if a facility qualified as a military objective, an attack would still be prohibited if it risks “excessive incidental civilian harm.”
Rachel VanLandingham, a Southwestern Law School professor who served as a judge advocate general in the U.S. Air Force, said the practical effect of Trump’s approach would likely be civilian deaths. She said civilians are likely to die if power is cut to hospitals and water treatment plans, warning that Trump’s message suggested a disregard for precision and for the impact on noncombatants.
Michael Schmitt, a professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College and an international law professor at the University of Reading in Britain, described the threat as potentially unlawful even under a military-necessity analysis. He said “This strikes me as clearly a threat of unlawful action,” and he cautioned that a power facility can be attacked only if it provides electricity to a military base in addition to serving civilians, and even then only if strikes do not cause disproportionate harm and commanders take steps to minimize harm.
Schmitt said legal tests require more than establishing a military purpose. He said harm under the laws of armed conflict is not limited to inconvenience or fear, but can include severe mental suffering, physical injury, or illness. He added that commanders should consider alternatives such as targeting a substation or transmission lines that feed electricity to a base rather than destroying an entire power plant, and he suggested that if commanders conclude a strike would cause unacceptable civilian harm, they should stop: “If you hesitate to take the shot, don’t take the shot.”
Not all U.S. lawmakers agreed with the legal critique. Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa said Monday that Trump was “absolutely not” threatening a war crime when he discussed bombing civilian infrastructure. Ernst said the infrastructure is also used by the military and described Trump’s approach as “an ongoing operation,” adding, “If he needs leverage, he’s using that leverage.”
Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland took the opposite view, calling it a war crime if the targets are civilian infrastructure. “If you target civilian infrastructure for the purposes the president was talking about, it clearly is a textbook war crime,” Van Hollen said.
Dujarric said questions about whether attacks on civilian infrastructure would amount to war crimes would have to be decided by a court. Katherine Thompson, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said any accountability would more likely come from Congress than from foreign or international bodies, arguing that sovereign decisions would have to cede authority to a foreign venue to allow other forms of accountability.
Trump’s rhetoric has extended beyond Monday’s news conference, escalating threats toward critical components of Iran’s energy system. The AP report said Trump had threatened on Easter Sunday that Iran would face “Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one,” while warning “you’ll be living in Hell” unless the Strait of Hormuz reopens. The report also said Trump warned in a Truth Social post on March 30 that the U.S. would obliterate “all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!),” while saying those targets had not yet been “touched.”
Even if commanders tried to justify some strikes under the laws of war, VanLandingham said the broader strategy could produce long-term blowback. She said that lawful violence can still be “awful” and pointed to the outcomes of past U.S. conflicts, saying, “There’s a lot of violence that can still be justified as lawful, but lawful can still be awful,” and, “How far did that get us in Iraq? How far did that get us in Afghanistan? How far did that get us in Vietnam?”
VanLandingham also said Trump’s warning could spread fear among Iranians and send a message that the U.S. is unconcerned about their wellbeing, potentially enabling Iranian leaders to use the rhetoric as propaganda and harden opposition. For Trump’s part, the AP report said he told reporters Monday that he was “not at all” concerned about committing war crimes and said every power plant would be “burning, exploding and never to be used again,” while adding, “I hope I don’t have to do it.” When asked for further comment, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said the “Iranian people welcome the sound of bombs because it means their oppressors are losing,” and in an email she wrote that Iran’s leaders have committed human rights abuses and have targeted civilians across the region.