Trump’s threats against Iranian civilian infrastructure ‘perfectly acceptable’ – UN envoy - Yet it's illegal under the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols
- 7 days ago
- 3 min read
Source: RT News
Mike Waltz defends possible strikes on power plants and bridges, dismissing war crime accusations as “irresponsible”
US President Donald Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian power plants and bridges is “perfectly acceptable,” Washington’s envoy to the UN Mike Waltz has said, dismissing accusations of potential war crimes.
Speaking on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, Waltz insisted that “all options are on the table” regarding a possible escalation of the US-Israeli war on Iran. He added that US forces could take out Iranian infrastructure “relatively easily” and claimed that Iranian air defenses have been “absolutely decimated.”
When pressed on whether Trump’s threat to target all power plants and bridges in Iran would be considered a breach of international law, Waltz admitted that it would be “an escalatory ladder.” However, he vehemently dismissed “ridiculous arguments” that it would constitute a “war crime,” calling such criticisms “irresponsible,” and drawing parallels with World War II.
Waltz went on to accuse Tehran of blurring the line between civilian and military assets and of allegedly hiding weapons and military hardware in residential areas, schools, and hospitals.
Trump’s threat came in a Truth Social post on Sunday in which he accused Iran of violating a two-week ceasefire by firing at ships in the Strait of Hormuz, including what he claimed were shots aimed at French and British vessels.
“No more Mr. Nice Guy,” Trump wrote, announcing that US representatives would travel to Islamabad for a new round of negotiations on Monday. He warned that if Iran doesn’t accept Washington’s “fair and reasonable deal,” the US is going to “knock out every single power plant, and every single bridge, in Iran.”
On Sunday, the US military announced that it had seized the Iranian-flagged Touska cargo vessel in the Gulf of Oman when it was allegedly attempting to breach a naval blockade and pass the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has condemned the US attack as “armed maritime piracy” and a breach of the truce.
The ceasefire, brokered by Pakistan, is set to expire on Wednesday. A first round of talks in Islamabad last weekend failed to produce a breakthrough, with Iran’s nuclear program remaining the main sticking point. Trump is demanding that Tehran dismantle its infrastructure and hand over its enriched uranium – proposals Iran has rejected as “non-starters.”
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has also called the US naval blockade of Iranian ports “unlawful and criminal” and a violation of the ceasefire, warning that it amounts to “collective punishment” and could be considered a war crime.
Ironically, if you ask the question, yes, it is illegal under international humanitarian law (the laws of war) to intentionally attack civilian infrastructure, as it constitutes a war crime. Under the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, combatants must distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects.
Key Principles and Legal Rules
Principle of Distinction: Parties to a conflict must distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives. Attacks may only be directed against military objectives.
Definition of Civilian Objects: These include houses, schools, places of worship, hospitals, and any infrastructure not contributing to military action.
Indispensable Infrastructure: Attacks on objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population—such as drinking water installations, food supplies, and power plants—are explicitly prohibited, especially if aimed at starving civilians or forcing their movement.
Prohibition on Terror: Attacks intended primarily to spread terror among the civilian population are strictly forbidden.
Exceptions and Nuances
Dual-Use Infrastructure: Civilian infrastructure can lose its protection if it is used for military purposes, such as a bridge used for troop transport or a power plant powering military facilities. However, attacking such, "dual-use" objects must still adhere to the principle of proportionality, meaning the incidental harm to civilians must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
Collateral Damage: Accidental damage to civilian infrastructure during an attack on a valid military target is not necessarily a war crime, but it must not be excessive or indiscriminate.
Accountability
Deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure can be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) as war crimes. However, enforcement can be difficult, particularly if the states involved are not members of the ICC or if they exercise veto power on the UN Security Council, which can prevent cases from being referred.
