This Is Not a Threat. This Is a War Crime.
- Kal Inois
- Apr 5
- 4 min read
We need to stop using the word "controversial" to describe what is happening in Iran. What is happening is not controversial. It is not a policy disagreement. It is not a matter of perspective. What is happening — what is being threatened openly, brazenly, by the President of the United States — has a name.
It is called a war crime.
And we, as Americans, are allowing it to happen in our name.
What the Law Says
This is not opinion. This is not partisan spin. This is the law.
The Geneva Conventions, the foundational rules of warfare agreed upon after the horrors of World War II, explicitly prohibit the deliberate destruction of "objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population." That includes power plants. That includes water supplies. That includes desalination plants. Article 54 of Additional Protocol I specifically lists "drinking water installations and supplies" as targets that are off-limits. Period. No exceptions. No gray area.
Over 100 international law experts signed an open letter this week stating that the U.S. strikes launched on February 28, 2026 violated the UN Charter, and that †rump's threats against civilian infrastructure, if carried out, would constitute war crimes. This is not a fringe legal opinion. This is the consensus of
international law scholars across the world.
The Threats on Record
If you've heard or been following this president's social media over the past several weeks, you already know what has been said. The threats against Iranian power plants, bridges, water supplies, and desalination facilities have been made repeatedly, publicly, and in his own words — escalating week by week since late February.
We've covered those posts in detail elsewhere. The point here is not what he said. The point is what it means under the law.
A Stanford Law professor noted that the language used — threatening to destroy infrastructure so severely that Iran could "never rebuild as a nation again" — is legally significant. It indicates targets are being selected because they contribute to the viability of modern Iranian society, which has nothing to do with military necessity. That distinction, under international law, is the difference between a strike and a war crime.
It Goes Beyond †rump
This is not one man acting alone. This is a pattern, and it has accomplices.
Defense secretary Pete Hegseth declared "no quarter, no mercy for our enemies" at a Pentagon briefing on March 13, a phrase the Pentagon's own Law of War Manual explicitly describes as a war crime. He has not retracted it. He also fired the top military lawyers for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, saying he didn't want them to be "roadblocks to orders given by a commander in chief."
In his 2024 book, Hegseth wrote that troops "should not fight by rules written by dignified men in mahogany rooms eighty years ago." Those rules are the Geneva Conventions. The rules that exist because of Auschwitz. Because of Hiroshima. Because of what happens when the world decides that some human beings don't count.
And secretary of state Marco Rubio, who just days earlier signed a G7 joint statement calling for an
immediate end to attacks on civilian infrastructure, has said nothing.
"War on essential infrastructure is war on civilians." — ICRC PRESIDENT MIRJANA SPOLJARIC EGGER, MARCH 2026
The Precedent Being Shattered
In 2024, the International Criminal Court indicted four Russian military officials for systematically striking Ukraine's power grid. The world condemned it. The United States condemned it. Now the United States is threatening to do the same thing to Iran — openly, repeatedly — and calling it strength.
"Absolutely a war crime, both under international law and U.S. law. We have a War Crimes
Act that prohibits precisely this kind of thing. It would also be a violation of laws against
terrorism." — GABOR RONA, CARDOZO LAW SCHOOL / NPR
Human Rights Watch warned that destroying Iran's power stations would be "devastating to the Iranian
people" — cutting electricity to hospitals, collapsing water systems, ending essential services for 90 million people.
When we condemned Russia for doing this to Ukraine, we were right. The law does not change based
on who is holding the weapon.
"But They Can't Be Prosecuted"
This is the argument you will hear. And it is partially true — and entirely beside the point.
Yes, the U.S., Iran, and Israel are not members of the International Criminal Court. Yes, near-term
prosecution is unlikely. But legal scholars are clear: war crimes carry universal jurisdiction with no statute
of limitations. Any country, at any point in the future, could prosecute. The record being built right now, in public threats broadcast to the world, does not disappear.
And beyond prosecution, there is something more immediate at stake. As one law professor put it: "If we set aside the rules when we deem expedient, why can't our adversaries?" Russia pointed to Abu Ghraib. Now the world will point to this.
WHAT YOU MUST DO — ACT NOW
CALL CONGRESS TODAY
Demand your representatives speak out against illegal strikes on civilian infrastructure. Capitol
Switchboard: 202-224-3121 | senate.gov | house.gov
DEMAND HEGSETH'S RESIGNATION
A Defense Secretary who declares "no quarter, no mercy" and removes legal guardrails has
disqualified himself from office. Say so loudly and to everyone who will listen.
SHARE THE LEGAL RECORD
The open letter from 100+ international law experts is public. The NPR legal breakdown is public.
Share them. Do not let this be buried under the next news cycle.
CONTACT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
Marco Rubio signed a G7 statement against civilian infrastructure attacks — then went silent. Hold
him to his own signature: state.gov/contact
SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS ON THE GROUND
Human Rights Watch (hrw.org) · ICRC (icrc.org) · Just Security (justsecurity.org) are documenting
these threats in real time. They need your support.
REMEMBER: SILENCE IS A CHOICE
When the Nuremberg trials concluded, the question wasn't only about the men in the dock. It was
about everyone who knew, and said nothing. We know.
The Geneva Conventions were written so that the world would never again look away from atrocities committed in the name of national interest. They were written for exactly this moment.
This is an activist editorial. All quotes and legal citations are drawn from verified public reporting and legal expert analysis. ·
Comments