Destruction of Infrastructure for the Impact on Civilians is Manifestly Illegal
Last week the US president announced that : ... if the Hormuz Strait is not immediately "Open for Business," we will conclude our lovely "stay" in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet "touched." This will be in retribution for our many soldiers, and others, that Iran has butchered and killed over the old Regime's 47 year "Reign of Terror." Yesterday morning he posted that : Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell... These are threats to target civilian infrastructure as a coercive measure, which would be a war crime: if Iran doesn't allow tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, the US will cause massive damage to power plants, bridges, and possibly water systems. The US has historically accepted that this is off limits: destroying a bridge to stop it from being used to transport weapons is allowed, but not as retribution or to cause the civilian population to experience "Hell". The Pentagon's own Law of War Manual recognizes this distinction: when NATO destroyed power infrastructure in Kosovo, it was key that the civilian impact was secondary to the military advantage and not the primary purpose. [1][2] To be clear, what Iran has been doing to precipitate this, by attacking
The threat of destroying civilian infrastructure in Iran as a coercive measure has sparked international concern, with many experts arguing that such actions would constitute a war crime. Last week, the US President announced that if the Strait of Hormuz is not immediately "open for business," the US would obliterate Iran's electric generating plants, oil wells, and Kharg Island, potentially including desalinization plants. This retaliation is in response to the many soldiers and others killed by Iran over the past 47 years under the old regime.
Yesterday, the President further escalated the situation by declaring Tuesday as "Power Plant Day" and "Bridge Day," threatening to cause massive damage to Iran's infrastructure. These threats to target civilian infrastructure as a coercive measure are being scrutinized as potential war crimes. The US has historically accepted that certain actions are off-limits, such as destroying a bridge solely to prevent its use for transporting weapons, rather than as retribution or to cause civilian suffering.
The Pentagon's Law of War Manual outlines this distinction, emphasizing that civilian impact must be secondary to military advantage. For instance, when NATO destroyed power infrastructure in Kosovo, the civilian consequences were a byproduct of military operations, not the primary objective. This principle is crucial in determining whether an action constitutes a war crime.
Iran's actions, such as attacking civilian tankers for economic impacts, are themselves considered war crimes. However, this does not absolve the US from its obligations under the Law of War. The US has spent decades advocating for the unconditional adherence to the Law of War, prosecuting both its service members and enemy combatants for violations.
The question now is whether the US will adhere to its own principles or succumb to the pressure to escalate the conflict. While the public may be unaware of the legal implications, it is crucial for those issuing orders to remain mindful of the potential consequences. The US has consistently maintained that respect for the Law of War is unwavering in all circumstances, and this stance must be upheld to avoid further complicating an already volatile situation.
In conclusion, the threat to target Iran's civilian infrastructure raises serious legal and ethical concerns. The US must ensure that its actions align with international law and its own established principles, lest it face severe repercussions. The stakes are high, and the potential for civilian suffering is immense, making it imperative to find a diplomatic solution rather than resorting to coercive measures that could be deemed war crimes.
