These are threats to target civilian infrastructure as a coercive measure, which would be a war crime: if Iran doesn’t allow tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, the US will cause massive damage to power plants, bridges, and possibly water systems.
Yep, strong agree. I am more pro-Iran war than most, but I agree that Trump’s statements, if carried out, would very obviously be over this line. It is quite bad to even threaten, and good that (so far) it didn’t actually happen.
One other not-actually-closely-related point is that the Iran War itself is pretty plainly illegal under US law—Article I of the US constitution gives Congress sole authority to declare war, and they did not do so. But this is much different (and IMO much less important) than a war crime; in practice the authority to enter military conflicts and not actually call them “war” has been de facto granted to the executive for a very long time, so raising this as an objection for each new conflict rings pretty hollow.
Yep, strong agree. I am more pro-Iran war than most, but I agree that Trump’s statements, if carried out, would very obviously be over this line. It is quite bad to even threaten, and good that (so far) it didn’t actually happen.
One other not-actually-closely-related point is that the Iran War itself is pretty plainly illegal under US law—Article I of the US constitution gives Congress sole authority to declare war, and they did not do so. But this is much different (and IMO much less important) than a war crime; in practice the authority to enter military conflicts and not actually call them “war” has been de facto granted to the executive for a very long time, so raising this as an objection for each new conflict rings pretty hollow.