Destruction of Infrastructure for the Impact on Civilians is Manifestly Illegal

jefftk
Mon, 06 Apr 2026 10:00:07 GMT

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 civilian tankers for the economic impacts, is itself a war crime. But that does not change our obligations: the US has worked for decades to build acceptance for the principle that adherence to the Law of War is unconditional. It doesn't matter what our enemies do, we will respect the Law of War "in all circumstances". We've prosecuted our own service members, and enemy combatants, under this principle.

I hope that whatever is said publicly, no one will receive orders to target infrastructure beyond what military necessity demands. You don't need to be a military lawyer (and I'm certainly not one) to see that such orders would meet the threshold at which a member of the armed forces is legally required to disobey. I have immense respect both for commanders who refuse to pass on such orders and for service members who refuse to carry them out. [3]

[1] The manual cites Judith Miller, former DoD General Counsel, writing on Kosovo that "aside from directly damaging the military electrical power infrastructure, NATO wanted the civilian population to experience discomfort, so that the population would pressure Milosevic and the Serbian leadership to accede to UN Security Council Resolution 1244, but the intended effects on the civilian population were secondary to the military advantage gained by attacking the electrical power infrastructure." If the impact on civilians had been the primary motivation for NATO's attacks on power infrastructure they would not have been lawful.

[2] "Military objectives may not be attacked when the expected incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained." (DoD LoWM 5.2.2) and "Diminishing the morale of the civilian population and their support for the war effort does not provide a definite military advantage. However, attacks that are otherwise lawful are not rendered unlawful if they happen to result in diminished civilian morale." (DoD LoWM 5.6.7.3)

[3] "Members of the armed forces must refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit law of war violations." (DoD LoWM 18.3.2)

Discuss