U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement of a temporary ceasefire with Iran averted threats that international law experts believe could have amounted to war crimes. Trump had warned of dire consequences if Iran did not comply with a deal, including reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and had previously threatened to destroy Iranian infrastructure.
International law and Pentagon policy suggest that such hostile threats, even if not carried out, could violate the laws of war. Experts state that widespread attacks on Iran's "civilization" and civilian infrastructure would constitute a clear war crime. While the White House defended Trump's rhetoric as leading to results, former military officials called the dismissal and language "horrifying."
UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric confirmed that attacking civilian infrastructure is banned under international law, with specific prohibitions against excessive incidental civilian harm. The 1949 Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory, outline these principles. Although the U.S. has not adopted the 1977 additional protocol specifically banning the destruction of civilian survival essentials, the U.S. Defense Department's own manual for the laws of war prohibits "acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population."
International law professors noted the difficulty in distinguishing negotiation from threat in Trump's approach, with one stating that carrying out such attacks would constitute "wanton destruction" motivated by spite and revenge, which is not permissible.
War crimes are defined as serious violations of international law. Experts have raised concerns about potential war crimes by the Trump administration, including the justification for launching the war itself and strikes on civilian targets like a school that killed schoolchildren. Human Rights Watch has called for investigations into such attacks, emphasizing the need to weigh military targets against disproportionate harm to civilians.
Concerns have also been raised about the weakening of protections ensuring U.S. military compliance with international law, including rhetoric questioning the rules of engagement. Determining a war crime involves examining the attackers' knowledge at the time of planning. While accountability for war crimes can be a lengthy process, potentially involving international courts, legal experts emphasize the importance of upholding these rules, built on the aftermath of World War II, to prevent unchecked destruction.