Donald Trump threatens to attack strategic infrastructure in Iran and accepts the risk of committing war crimes.
image: collage Watson
Donald Trump is threatening to destroy infrastructure that is essential to Iranian civil society. A risky and historic turn in warfare in the Middle East.
April 4, 2026, 8:10 p.mApril 4, 2026, 8:10 p.m
Shaun Tandon
By threatening to destroy Iran’s power grid and send the country’s 90 million residents “back to the Stone Age,” Donald Trump he disregards conventions regardless of losses: He does not rule out actions that could be considered possible war crimes.
According to experts it is however, unlikely that the US President, whose administration is actively undermining international institutions responsible for enforcing standards, at least in the short term expect consequences must.
translation
This text was written by our colleagues from French-speaking Switzerland and we translated it for you.
Russian military officials charged for similar actions
The Geneva Conventions, which govern the laws of war, prohibit the destruction of “objects vital to the civilian population”. In 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) indicted four Russian military personnel for systematic attacks on the Ukrainian power grid.
Donald Trump seems completely unconcerned. If the Iranians fail to reach an agreement with him on unspecified terms, American forces would “attack every single one of their power plants without exception”he explained on March 21 on his social media platform Truth Social. A few days ago he explained in an “important speech”:
“In the next two to three weeks (…) we will take them back to the Stone Age, where they belong.”
Provocative statements despite precedent
On Thursday The US President published images of the destruction of an iconic bridge near Tehran. “There will be many more to come!” he announced. Iran reported for its part significant damage to the Pasteur Institutea centuries-old medical research center.
Trump also threatened to attack oil wells, although Iraqi forces who set fire to oil facilities as they retreated from Kuwait in 1991 during the first Gulf War drew international condemnation.
His Defense Minister Pete Hegseth welcomed this in a speech at the beginning of March “the death and destruction falling from the skies over Iran all day long” and promised to reject “stupid rules of engagement.”
Bad consequences for the civilian population
The destruction of the power plants would have “devastating impact on the Iranian population”as it would cut power to hospitals and disrupt supplies of water and other essential supplies, said Sarah Yager, Washington director of Human Rights Watch. She adds:
“The US military has protocols in place to limit this type of harm to civilians. But if the president speaks out in this way, it threatens to signal that these restrictions are optional. That’s exactly what makes the current situation so dangerous.”
International law allows (in the same… Article) Attacks on power plants and other seemingly civilian targets – but only if it can be proven that they primarily serve military purposes. However, according to Tom Dannenbaum, a professor at Stanford Law School, Donald Trump’s comments suggest the opposite:
“The reference to the Stone Age suggests that the targets appear to be targeted because they contribute to the viability of a modern society in Iran – which has absolutely nothing to do with the question of participation in military efforts.”
Attack on power plants would be “disproportionate”
According to Robert Goldman, a war crimes specialist at the American University Washington College of Law, the American President don’t have the fiver and the Weggli:
“Trump has repeatedly stated that the United States has unrestricted air sovereignty and can attack anything (…). In my opinion, an attack on a power plant would be completely disproportionate as it would have completely foreseeable consequences for the civilian population.
Goldman emphasizes at the same time, that the retaliatory measures announced by Iran could also constitute war crimes, if, for example, they targeted desalination plants in US-allied Arab countries that are suffering from severe water shortages.
Criminal prosecution is (still) unlikely
The immediate risks to responsible US officials in the event of war crimes appear limited. The Trump administration tried to declare the International Criminal Court impotent following the arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister. Hardly anyone expects the Court to take action against Americans, especially as it does not count any of the countries involved in the ongoing war among its members.
However, Tom Dannenbaum points out that war crimes fall under the so-called Universal legal principle and are not subject to a statute of limitations. This means that theoretically any country could bring charges. He is of the opinion:
“Even if the political conditions are such that a war crimes trial is unlikely to lead to an immediate indictment, that does not mean that there will be no accountability later.”
Robert Goldman, on the other hand, believes that the main risk to the United States lies in its reputation. He argues that undermining the Geneva Conventions could have dangerous consequences for a country often at war. He concludes:
«If we ignore the rules when it suits us, why shouldn’t our opponents do the same? That could take revenge later.”
(btr/afp, additions July)