Donald Trump’s threats to carry out mass bombing of civilian infrastructure in Iran present US military officers with a dilemma: disobey orders or help commit war crimes.
It is an urgent matter for the US chain of command. In an expletive-laden threat, Trump set a Tuesday 8pm Washington time deadline for the Iranian government to open the strait of Hormuz or face “Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one”.
There is little debate among legal experts that such an attack on the life-supporting infrastructure for 93 million Iranians would constitute a war crime.
“Such rhetorical statements – if followed through – would amount to the most serious war crimes – and thus the president’s statements place service members in a profoundly challenging situation,” two former judge advocate general (JAG) officers, Margaret Donovan and Rachel VanLandingham wrote on the website Just Security on Monday.
“As former uniformed military lawyers who advised targeting operations, we know the president’s words run counter to decades of legal training of military personnel and risk placing our warfighters on a path of no return.”
Everyone with a functioning brain-cell knows that Trump is going to throw kegsbreath under the bus to save himself, and I for one can’t wait to see his smug slick backed face hung for war crimes.
Hanged. Ain’t no way this textbook case of overcompensating masculine fragility is hung, lbr.
Airplanes and ships firing mechanisms break down all the time, like toilets on aircraft carriers.
they have a poop deck just in case.
Pedophile orders you to commit war crimes for which you know you eventually WILL be judged…
Mmmmm, that IS a tough one…
They know the rules, and several elected officials reminded them in video messages that were very controversial.
They are walking into this with their eyes wide open, knowing the entire world is watching. If they accept those orders, and carry them out, they know it will not be forgotten, they will be punished for it eventually. They deserve no mercy if they follow that path.
The key is that the orders have to be obviously illegal. Can’t be much maybe about it. I didn’t see anything in the article saying what makes it a war crime. And I am pretty sure there isn’t anything very explicit doing so. Bombing/disrupting infrastructure has been a staple of war since forever.
I didn’t see anything in the article saying what makes it a war crime.
A war crime is a serious violation of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflict, known as international humanitarian law (IHL) and the laws of war, which gives rise to criminal responsibility under international law. Examples of actions committed by combatants in the conduct of war that can give rise to individual criminal responsibility include, but are not limited to: intentionally killing civilians, torture, taking hostages, unnecessarily destroying civilian property, deception by perfidy, wartime sexual violence, pillaging, the granting of no quarter despite surrender, the conscription of children in the military, ordering any attempt to commit mass killings (including genocide or ethnic cleansing), and flouting the requirements of distinction, proportionality and military necessity.[1]
Took me 3 seconds on wikipedia -_- every soldiers who commit war crime is a nazi and belongs to the rope.
So where in that is destroying infrastructure like bridges and power plants? “Unnecessary” is extremely objective.
Ww2 was where hitting the means of production occurred on an industrial scale. But from russians razing and burning their own land they retreat from to romans it has been standard.
International law means nothing anyway. We all know it. I’m sick of hearing about it because it means nothing.
Overall, yes. Proving an order illegal is a high bar. Proving it was obviously illegal to the soldier is even harder. International law isn’t US law. But some international law is specifically ratified in US law. But how is a soldier supposed to know which international laws are also US laws. These aren’t lawyers…
Thanks you fucking maga idiots. We all told you what was up and you ignored us.
They also ignored all their teachers.
That’s how they became MAGAts.
These types of articles are annoying at this point – the sort of appeal to morality things, based on essentially dead ‘world order’ concepts. Even when there was a quasi functional set of agreements in place, America just veto’d any attempt to hold it accountable anyhow. International law, or any law really, is largely based on some sort of ‘force’ that gives it authority – in a country, that force is generally the state/police, and internationally it was generally the US-lead coalition of western nations. That authority died in 2025.
We’ve already seen the USA/Hegseth drag all his generals into a room and tell them to not be ‘burdened by rules of engagement’, encouraging them to commit war crimes openly in order to instill terror in others. Anyone who disagreed with his speech was basically shown the door. This was like a year ago even, it’s not ‘new’.
The USA basically shredded any moral dilemmas/debates in the process, and burnt the soft power they’d been cultivating for decades/generations in early 2025. What’s the point of saying it’s wrong based on an old, defunct system that they’ve already abandoned? If anything, the American right wing will likely cheer that they’re getting these sorts of angsty pearl clutching responses from the left / foreign liberal powers. Trump quite literally bragged about America’s war crimes in Venezuela during his state of the union address, cracking jokes to which all the republicans laughed and applauded. Trump’s threats about Iran’s civilian infrastructure, and the bets on whether he’ll drop nukes – these are things that the right wing / Americans want to see happen. They think it’s right to do it.
So really, the article shouldn’t be about “Oh No!! International Law may be violated!”, but rather, “Why should people care about international law being violated, when they’ve already asserted that they disagree with that law and its results?”. Like if/when Trump drops nukes on Irans civilian power plants/water desalination plants etc… what then? Is there some sort of accountability that’s gonna suddenly show up? Prolly not.
the solution would be an UN operation against the united states. They can’t take all of us out.
I agree with your assessment and i share your fury about the situation.
One observation: repetition works. It may be hard to fathom, but lots of people voted for trump without any understanding of the world. lots of his supporters are evil, but some are stupid/ignorant/confused/misguided. trump’s support is falling - i won’t rule out that labeling his crimes and repeating the message that trump is a criminal may be working.
The international order did not die in 2025, or rather it was on its death bed since long before then. But yes I agree.
I’ve had people tell me that the soldiers firing missiles or piloting drones don’t necessarily know that it’s a kindergarten they’ve been ordered to obliterate, and sure I can see that being the case, but don’t they see the reports later? And then go back to work and bomb the next thing they’re told to?
Yea so I don’t care. Ignorance isn’t an excuse for us when we speed. It’s not an excuse to kill kids. Question what the fuck your are doing or take the fucking blame for it. It’s so fucking tiring seeing so many people claim they don’t accept responsibility because they chose to be fucking stupid. That’s worse in my eyes and the world would be better off if we all followed that rule.
Ah yes the nazi dilemma.
We solved that one in nuremberg. How is it even a question ffs
Been a long time since then. It ain’t that they forgot, it’s that they think it shouldn’t be their problem
Operation Paperclip showed them that there can be exceptions written into literally any rule including mass murder, so of course they all assume they’ll be pardoned.
Sure. But they already fired or demoted most of the military leadership that wasn’t on board with following absolutely any order, legal or otherwise. So now the “dilemma” falls mostly to lower-level officers and enlisted.
Officers now have to decide whether or not to commit war crimes? Wow, that is a dilemma, I wouldn’t want to be forced to make that decision. This article does a really good job humanizing their struggle, you can’t help but feel bad for them.
That’s not a “dilemma.” You don’t commit war crimes. You absolutely have the right and the duty to refuse illegal orders
I genuinely didn’t expect that level of “both sides”-ism from The Guardian.
It’s absolutely Imperative that in the new world Order the UN has to be a stronger (best would be THE strongest) global Military Power.
We have to figure out how something Like this rogue stateship of the Military hegemon of the world can be stopped. Otherwise Things gonna repeat themselves.
Maybe the UN should have nuke.
Is is legal to commit war crimes in the United States? Because if it is, this becomes an ethical argument rather than a legal one.
With this Trump-appointed crooked SCOTUS and the Trump-appointed crooked US Attorney General, combined with the fact we are not signatories to the ICC? I’m going to sadly say yes.
I don’t think it’s just because of this administration… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes
Certainly not, but seems this Admin is attempting a speed-run for a new record in both quantity and severity.
The US isn’t an ICC signatory, but it has its own military law that defines illegal orders, so some subset of war crimes is also illegal under US law. I’m guessing destroying the water infrastructure of nearly 100 million people would be included, but I’ll leave it to someone else to fact check that.
TL;DR: It’s illegal to commit some war crimes in America, but I don’t know about this particular war crime.
