Trump Gloats on Possible War Crimes in Iran

Experts say there will likely be no consequences for Trump, at least in the near term, as his administration makes a concerted effort to undermine international institutions charged with upholding norms.

The Geneva Conventions, which regulate the laws of war and were adopted after the Second World War, prohibit the destruction of “objects indispensable for the survival of the civilian population.”

In 2024, the International Criminal Court indicted four Russian military officials for systematic attacks on Ukraine’s power grid.

However, Trump said in a speech on Wednesday that US forces would “hit every single power generation facility” if Iran did not reach an unspecified agreement with him.

After briefly stating that his goal in joining Israel in launching the war on February 28 was to help the Iranians overthrow their unpopular religious-led government, Trump changed his tone by saying, “In the next two to three weeks, we’re going to bring them back to the Stone Age, where they belong.”

On Thursday, Trump posted footage of the collapse of a major bridge, saying, “There’s still so much to do!” he promised. And Iran reported major damage to the Pasteur Institute, a century-old medical research center.

Trump also threatened to attack oil wells, despite international condemnation of Iraqi forces who set fire to oil facilities while withdrawing from Kuwait in the first Gulf War in 1991.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long” against Iran and promised to reject “stupid rules of engagement.”

Impact on civilians

Sarah Yager, Human Rights Watch’s Washington director, said a paralysis of Iran’s power plants “would be devastating for the Iranian people” as it would cut off electricity to hospitals, water supplies and other vital civilian needs.

“The U.S. military has protocols designed to limit such harm to the civilian population, but when the president speaks this way, he risks signaling that these restrictions are optional, and that’s what makes this moment so dangerous,” he said.

International law permits attacks on energy facilities and other apparently civilian targets only if they are determined to primarily support military activities.

Tom Dannenbaum, a professor at Stanford Law School, said Trump’s own statements indicate otherwise.

“The reference to the Stone Age suggests that objects would be targeted ostensibly because they contributed to the viability of a modern society in Iran, which is entirely irrelevant to the question of contribution to military action, which is a necessary condition for targeting in war,” he said.

Robert Goldman, a war crimes expert at American University Washington School of Law, said Trump “can’t have it both ways” in energy fields.

“Trump reiterated that the United States has complete control of the skies and we can strike anything, regardless of its power source,” he said.

“To attack a power plant now would be completely disproportionate in my view because it would have very predictable consequences for the civilian population.”

He said Iran’s threat of retaliation could also constitute war crimes, such as targeting desalination plants in U.S.-allied Arab countries with severe water constraints.

Prosecution unlikely but long-term risk

Even if the United States commits war crimes, the immediate risks to Trump, Hegseth and other officials appear limited.

The Trump administration has aggressively sought to neuter the International Criminal Court by defying the arrest warrant issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Gaza.

Few expect the Hague-based court to target Americans, and none of the countries involved (the United States, Israel or Iran) are party to it.

But war crimes have universal jurisdiction with no statute of limitations, meaning any country could eventually sue, Dannenbaum said.

“Even if the political circumstances are such that a war crimes case is unlikely to be successfully prosecuted at this time,” he said, “this does not mean that accountability will not occur at a later date.”

Goldman said the risk to the United States is primarily a reputational risk, and undermining the Geneva Conventions could have dangerous consequences for a country frequently at war.

“If we can set aside the rules when we see fit, why can’t our competitors do it too?” What Goldman said was: “It might come back to bite us down the road.”