Trump Threatens Iran with Potential War Crimes

President's grave rhetoric on striking civilian targets sparks debate over legality of military orders

Apr. 8, 2026 at 3:05pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

President Trump's dire warnings to strike Iranian civilian targets if Tehran does not meet his calls to open the Strait of Hormuz has opened a fierce debate over whether service members will be asked to carry out what amounts to war crimes under the Geneva Conventions. His increasingly grave language, a stark departure from the public rhetoric of past U.S. presidents, has alarmed legal experts, who say it's a dangerous escalation that creates a permissive environment for civilian harm.

Why it matters

The president's rhetoric appears to signal a willingness to target civilian infrastructure in Iran, which would violate international laws of war. This raises concerns that military personnel could be ordered to carry out unlawful attacks, potentially implicating them in war crimes. It also heightens tensions between the U.S. and Iran, increasing the risk of further conflict escalation.

The details

Trump has threatened to hit Iranian power plants and bridges if the regime does not agree to his demands to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, warning the attacks would send the country 'back to the Stone Ages.' Deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure are considered violations of the laws of war under the Geneva Conventions. Legal experts say while the law of war allows for some civilian harm, Trump's rhetoric seems to convey that such harm is acceptable in attempting to gain concrete military advantage, which is a dangerous escalation.

  • On Easter Sunday, Trump ordered Iran to 'Open the F‑‑‑in' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH!'
  • On Tuesday morning, Trump posted on Truth Social that 'a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again' if Iran did not meet the deadline to reopen the critical shipping channel.

The players

President Trump

The President of the United States who has issued grave threats against Iran, including potential attacks on civilian infrastructure which would violate international laws of war.

Rachel VanLandingham

A retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and former judge advocate who says Trump's rhetoric is dangerous and could lead to more civilian suffering.

Brian Finucane

A former State Department lawyer who is now a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, and who called Trump's comments 'unprecedented' and said wide-scale destruction of infrastructure without distinguishing between civilian and military targets would constitute a war crime.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The law of war allows for a great deal of civilian harm, a great deal of destruction, in particular, because the United States takes a more stretched view — it's controversial — regarding what's a lawful military objective in the first place.”

— Rachel VanLandingham, Retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and former judge advocate

“The mere speculation that at some point in the future a missile or drone or components thereof, might be driven over a bridge is not enough to make it a military objective. In principle, targeting individual bridges could constitute a military objective, but the present statements that attack all of them means that they're attacking civilian objects as well, which would be a war crime.”

— Brian Finucane, Former State Department lawyer, senior adviser at the International Crisis Group

What’s next

The judge in any potential case against Trump or military personnel for war crimes would need to determine if the president's threats and any resulting attacks on Iranian civilian infrastructure meet the legal threshold for unlawful targeting of non-military sites.

The takeaway

Trump's grave rhetoric toward Iran has raised serious concerns that he may order military strikes on civilian targets, which would constitute war crimes under international law. This dangerous escalation puts U.S. service members at risk of being implicated in unlawful acts, and heightens the potential for further conflict with Iran.