{"id":314864,"date":"2026-04-13T12:00:54","date_gmt":"2026-04-13T11:00:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=314864"},"modified":"2026-04-08T22:00:06","modified_gmt":"2026-04-08T21:00:06","slug":"destroying-irans-electric-and-water-supply-is-a-war-crime","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2026\/04\/destroying-irans-electric-and-water-supply-is-a-war-crime\/","title":{"rendered":"Destroying Iran’s Electric and Water Supply Is a War Crime"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

PHOTO-ILLUSTRATION: by WIRED Middle East Staff based on image from Getty Images<\/p><\/div>\n

\n
\n

The Illegality of Trump\u2019s Threats to Destroy Civilian Infrastructure in Iran<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

\n

6 Apr 2026<\/span><\/em> – On March 21, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum to the Islamic Republic of Iran demanding that it reopen the Strait of Hormuz. If Iran did not comply, Trump threatened<\/a>\u00a0to \u201cobliterate\u201d Iranian power plants, beginning with the largest one. Days later, he escalated further<\/a>, posting on his Truth Social platform that if a deal was not reached \u201cshortly,\u201d the United States would \u201cconclude our lovely \u2018stay\u2019 in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island.\u201d Trump has since repeated his threats, and gave a deadline of midnight, April 7 for Iran to comply, after which US bombing would begin to destroy all Iranian power plants and bridges.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

These were not loose remarks. They were specific, repeated, public threats by the President of the United States, commander-in-chief of US military forces to order the destruction of civilian infrastructure on which tens of millions of people depend for electricity, clean water, hospital operations, food distribution, and survival.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

On April 1, 2026, Trump went further,<\/a>\u00a0threatening in a national address to bomb Iran \u201cback to the Stone Ages.\u201d(sic) The same day, over U.S 100 international law experts including senior professors at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and the University of California, former government legal advisors, and former Judge Advocates General published an open letter<\/a>\u00a0in Just Security<\/a>\u00a0concluding that U.S. strikes since February 28 are \u201ca clear violation of the United Nations Charter\u201d and that Trump\u2019s statements \u201craise serious concerns about violations of international humanitarian law, including potential war crimes.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, declined to repudiate the threats, stating only <\/a>that U.S. armed forces \u201cwill always act within the confines of the law.\u201d Similarly, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine, asserted that<\/a> the military \u201cstrikes lawful targets in accordance with normal procedures.\u201d However, a review of the legal framework governing armed conflict makes clear that, if these threats were to be carried out, they would result in serious violations of international humanitarian law. They would be war crimes.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

International Humanitarian Law: The US, Israel, and Iran are States-Parties<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

International humanitarian law (IHL) is binding on all parties to armed conflict. Its principles are clear, well established, and not subject to derogation or presidential override. All members of the United Nations, including the USA, Israel, and Iran are States-Party to all four Geneva Conventions. The USA, Israel, and Iran and 99 other nations are States-Party to the Hague Conventions of 1907. All nations are bound by customary international law, including the laws established by the Nuremberg Tribunal.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

175 nations are States-Party to Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. The USA, Israel, and Iran are not States-Party to Additional Protocol I, but most authorities on international law hold that Additional Protocol I\u2019s near universal acceptance has made it applicable to all nations as customary international law (jus cogens)<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Collective punishment and war crimes<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention <\/a>prohibits collective penalties and all measures of intimidation or terrorism. Threatening to cut off electricity and water to an entire population as a means of coercing political compliance clearly constitutes collective punishment. This conclusion was echoed by\u00a0 Yusra Suedi, Assistant Professor of International Law at the University of Manchester who\u00a0described Trump\u2019s threat as<\/a>\u00a0\u201cclearly an act of collective punishment,\u201d adding: \u201cYou can\u2019t deliberately harm an entire civilian population to pressure its government.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Threats to give no quarter<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Article 23 of the Hague Conventions of 1907, customary international law (jus cogens)<\/em>, and Article 40 of Additional Protocol I prohibit threats and orders to \u201cgive no quarter\u201d, i.e., to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten as such, or to conduct hostilities on that basis.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

US War Secretary Hegseth\u2019s threats to give no quarter, if implemented by orders to give no quarter, constitute war crimes.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Water and power infrastructure enjoy special protection.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Article 54 of Additional Protocol I<\/a>\u00a0of the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibits attacking, destroying, removing, or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. It specifically lists \u201cdrinking water installations and supplies\u201d among such protected objects.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The provision exists precisely because such infrastructure cannot be separated from civilian life: when it collapses, people die from thirst, disease, and the cascading failure of hospitals, agriculture, and sanitation systems.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The principles of distinction and proportionality<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The principle of distinction<\/a>\u00a0is a cornerstone of international humanitarian law. It permits attacks only against military objectives namely, objects and persons that make an effective contribution to military action. Power plants and water desalination facilities, by their nature, serve entire civilian populations and are therefore presumptively civilian objects.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Distinction<\/em>\u00a0is the principle in international humanitarian law whereby belligerents must distinguish between combatants and protected civilians. Proportionality<\/em>\u00a0is the principle whereby belligerents must make sure that the harm caused to protected civilians or civilian property is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected by an attack on a legitimate military objective.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Even where infrastructure has dual military and civilian use, Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I <\/a>prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental civilian harm that would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Iran operates a unified electrical grid: military and civilian users draw from the same source. Amnesty International\u2019s March 2026<\/a>\u00a0analysis concludes that attacking Iran\u2019s power plants \u201cwould be disproportionate and thus unlawful under international humanitarian law and could amount to a war crime.\u201d The cascading effects would extend far beyond Iran: much of the Gulf region depends on electricity-powered desalination for its drinking water.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The International Criminal Court has charged Russian commanders for destroying power stations in Ukraine.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

On March 5, 2024,\u00a0the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants <\/a>for senior Russian commanders Lt. Gen. Sergei Kobylash and Adm. Viktor Sokolov for directing “a campaign of strikes against numerous electric power plants and sub-stations” across Ukraine, finding reasonable grounds for “the war crime of directing attacks at civilian objects.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Kenneth Roth, former Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, has stated:<\/a> \u201cI see no difference between what Trump is threatening to do in Iran and what the ICC charged Russian commanders for doing in Ukraine.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

U.S. Domestic Law:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The War Crimes Act of 1996 was passed by overwhelming majorities from both political parties and signed into law by President Clinton. It incorporates into US law all obligations of the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions. It applies to all members of the US Armed Forces.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The War Crimes Act <\/a>of 1996 criminalizes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, including attacks against civilian objects and conduct causing excessive civilian harm.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The Department of Defense Law of War Manual<\/a>\u00a0requires adherence to the principles of distinction<\/em> and proportionality<\/em>, prohibiting attacks directed at civilian objects or those expected to cause disproportionate harm.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

These rules reflect binding legal obligations on U.S. forces, meaning that orders to deliberately destroy infrastructure indispensable to civilian survival are war crimes under both international and domestic law.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

US military personnel ordered to commit war crimes are obligated since Nuremberg to refuse to carry out such orders. If they do carry out orders to commit war crimes, they may be prosecuted. Superior orders are not a defense. Under US law, war crimes may be punished by life imprisonment or death. Superior orders may only be used for mitigation of sentence.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The Stakes Could Not Be Higher<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

If the threats by President Trump and War Secretary Hegseth to destroy Iranian electric power plants are carried out, the consequences will be devastating. Hospitals will go dark. Water pumping stations will fail. Sewage systems will collapse, the deaths will be counted in the tens of thousands, most of them civilians who had no part in any political decisions by Iran\u2019s tyrannical leaders.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The harm will not stop at Iran’s borders: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the UAE depend on desalination for the majority of their drinking water. Their electrical power depends on generators run by the gas they obtain from the Persian Gulf.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u00a0The Islamic Republic of Iran<\/a>\u00a0has threatened to retaliate if Trump proceeds with his threats by targeting the \u201cpower plants of the occupying regime [USA] and the power plants of regional countries that supply electricity to USA bases, as well as the economic, industrial, and energy infrastructure in which Americans hold shares.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The entire region could be plunged into a humanitarian catastrophe affecting hundreds of millions of people.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The law is unambiguous. The human cost is foreseeable. The consensus of experts on international humanitarian law is overwhelming.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u00a0If their threats become military orders and action, President Trump and Secretary of War Hegseth will be guilty of war crimes.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Genocide Watch Recommends:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n