Off and on during the Iran war, President Donald Trump has threatened U.S. attacks on civilian infrastructure if the Iranian government fails to meet certain demands.
On March 21, Trump wrote on Truth Social that “if Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!”
Although Trump later extended that deadline twice, he said March 30 on Truth Social 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 (the oil distribution hub) Kharg Island,” and “possibly all desalinization plants.”
Trump said such targets have “purposefully” not yet been targeted in U.S. strikes, but that such attacks could be made “in retribution for our many soldiers, and others, that Iran has butchered and killed over the old Regime’s 47 year ‘Reign of Terror.’”
In his April 1 prime time address, Trump said, “If there is no deal, we will hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously.”
Since Trump’s initial threat, non-governmental groups and Democratic lawmakers have urged him not to strike civilian infrastructure, saying it would go against international law.
Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass. — who is running for Senate this year — said on MS NOW March 24 that “bombing civilian power infrastructure is a war crime.”
Experts in international law said Moulton’s assertion is well supported, though there is some gray area in determining whether such attacks would be legal under international law. In addition, experts said it is unlikely that Trump or any other U.S. official would be brought to account if they made such a move, because neither the U.S. nor Iran is a member of the International Criminal Court.
Moulton’s campaign did not provide evidence for his statement.
Would attacking electricity infrastructure be a war crime?
The most directly relevant provision of international law comes from Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, specifically three portions of the agreement. They say:
-
All parties to a conflict “shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants” and “shall direct their operations only against military objectives.”
-
“Acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population, are prohibited.”
-
Attacks on military targets are those that “make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization … offers a definite military advantage.”
Together, these provisions would make the bombing of civilian targets, including those in Iran, “a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law,” said Milena Sterio, a Cleveland State University law professor who specializes in international law. The bombing of a civilian target “would give rise to a war crime,” she said.
Even though the U.S. has not ratified Protocol I, the agreement has “the status of customary law, which is binding on all states,” Sterio said. “It doesn’t not matter that the U.S. is not a member of the protocol.”
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres told Politico that “if there are attacks either on Iran or from Iran on energy infrastructure, I think that there are reasonable grounds to think that they might constitute a war crime.”
There is some nuance in the rules dictating how the attacks are classified by the UN, however. Targets with both military and civilian uses are known as “dual use.”
An attacking state could argue that an otherwise civilian target is serving a military purpose, making it a legitimate military target, Sterio said.
Under that argument, another provision of Protocol I — the “principle of proportionality” — comes into play.
“You would still have to weigh the military advantage anticipated against the civilian harm your attack will cause,” Sterio said. “When it comes to cutting off power for thousands or tens of thousands of individuals, it may be argued that the civilian harm outweighs the military advantage.”
The proportionality principle “is only relevant if the targets are being attacked as military targets — to provide a quantifiable military advantage to the attacker,” said Stuart Ford, a University of Illinois-Chicago law professor. By contrast, if they are being attacked as a way to punish the civilian population, Ford said, “then it doesn’t matter whether they are dual use targets. You can never intentionally attack an object with the purpose of causing civilian harm.”
Such a military advantage “must be the real reason behind the strike, and not simply a pretext to terrorize the civilian population,” said Pace University law professor Alexander K.A. Greenawalt.
The specific type of infrastructure targeted might matter, too.
Kenneth Roth, a former executive director of Human Rights Watch, told CNN that desalination plants — which produce more than half the drinking water for U.S.-allied Qatar and Bahrain, though less for Iran — “are purely civilian infrastructure. There is no legal argument whatsoever for attacking them.”
Other types of infrastructure, such as power plants, might be more legally justifiable as targets, depending on how extensive their military use is.
“Whether a power plant would constitute a military objective or civilian object would depend on the facts and circumstances, but the president’s categorical statement represents a threat to target even civilian objects regardless of the requirement for distinction, which would be a war crime,” Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer, told The New York Times.
In a statement to PolitiFact, a White House spokesperson did not directly address the question of whether such attacks would constitute war crimes.
“The terrorist Iranian regime has committed egregious human rights abuses for 47 years, including brutally killing its own people for merely speaking out against its oppressive rule,” the statement said. “By achieving the military objectives stated under Operation Epic Fury, President Trump is making the entire region safer and more stable by eliminating Iran’s short- and long-term threats to our country and our allies.”
The International Criminal Court, as seen in The Hague, Netherlands, Dec. 9, 2025, prosecutes people for serious international crimes such as genocide and war crimes. (AP)
Could any American be prosecuted for alleged war crimes?
It’s unlikely that Americans would be prosecuted for bombing civilian infrastructure, experts said. Theoretically, the International Criminal Court would be the relevant prosecutor; the court, for example, has issued arrest warrants for Russians accused of intentionally attacking civilian targets in Ukraine.
But a prosecution can proceed only if the alleged crimes take place on the territory of a member state or are carried out by a national of a member state. Neither the United States nor Iran are members of the International Criminal Court. The United Nations Security Council also has the authority to refer a case to the ICC. But the U.S. has veto power on the Security Council, so it would be able to block such a referral.
“Possibly the U.S. could investigate itself, but countries are typically not good at investigating their own behavior and imposing accountability on themselves,” Sterio said.
And that option is even less likely now that the U.S. Supreme Court has given the president legal immunity for official acts, Greenawalt said, because the president would likely be able to establish that he is waging the war in his official capacity.
Our ruling
Moulton said, “Bombing civilian power infrastructure is a war crime.”
This is a widely accepted interpretation of international law. However, the U.S. could argue that a particular attack is justified because the infrastructure had a dual civilian-military use and that the benefit from the enemy’s military setback was greater than the harm to civilians.
U.S. officials are unlikely to be prosecuted for any alleged war crimes because neither the U.S. or Iran is a member of the International Criminal Court.
The statement is accurate but needs additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.
This story originally appeared on PolitiFact
