Trump’s threats against Iran’s bridges and energy: war crime or military strategy?

The threats of the president of the United States, donald trumpto attack bridges and power plants in Iran have raised alarm bells not only because of the risk of a military escalation throughout the Middle Eastbut also for its legal implications and whether or not that action constitutes war crimes. Can the attack on energy infrastructure be justified due to its strategic value or would it be a form of pressure that indirectly punishes millions of civilians?

Trump reiterated his threat to destroy civilian infrastructure in Iran on Mondaysuch as bridges and power plants, if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened on the night of Tuesday, April 7. He assured that the Islamic Republic will return to the “stone age.”

SEE ALSO: The key role of the CIA that defined the success of the daring rescue of the pilot of the F-15 shot down by Iran

The Republican said that “The entire country could be wiped out in one night.”

On Tuesday morning, Trump warned Iran that “an entire civilization will die tonight, never to return.”

“I don’t want that to happen, but it’s likely to happen… WHO KNOWS? We’ll find out tonight, at one of the most important moments in the world’s long and complex history,” held.

Could what Trump announced be a war crime? In international humanitarian law, the short answer is: depends on the context. Not every attack on energy infrastructure or bridges is automatically a war crime, but can be if you violate certain key rules.

According to the Geneva Conventions and its protocols, can only be attacked military objectives. Attacking is prohibited civil property. A bridge or a power plant can become a legitimate military objective if they are used to move troops or weapons or if they directly support military operations (for example, power supply to military bases). In that case, the attack It wouldn’t be a war crimein principle.

The principle of proportionality must also be taken into account. Even if the target is military, another key criterion comes into play: the attack must not cause excessive civil damage in relation to the military advantage obtained. For example, destroying a key bridge for the enemy may be legal, but if it leaves thousands of civilians without food or evacuation, it could be considered disproportionate and potential war crime.

International law especially protects essential goods for the civilian population, such as electricity, water and food.

If a power plant is destroyed with the aim of depriving civilians of basic servicescould violate international law.

Trump’s threats follow historic war doctrine

The international analyst Francesco Tucciprofessor of Political Science and International Relations at the UPC, holds The Commerce that the threats of trump They do not represent a new practice in the logic of modern war, but rather They respond to doctrines already applied by Washington in previous conflicts.

“The United States has already used this type of strategy. In the 1991 Gulf War it applied the doctrine of rapid dominance, known as ‘strike and terrorize’, which included the destruction of infrastructure to weaken not only the armed forces, but also the morale of the population.”he explains.

Along these lines, remember that in the invasion of Iraq In 2003, power plants and other key facilities were destroyed, generating a widespread collapse without this leading to widespread accusations of war crimes against the coalition led by Washington.

For Tucci, this background is key to understanding the current debate: “The destruction of infrastructure is hardly a war crime, although it clearly impacts the civilian population”. According to the specialist, this is because these are not, in principle, attacks directed directly against civilians, but rather “instrumental” actions aimed at weakening the military capacity of the adversary.

However, he warns that the underlying problem is broader, since he states that The United States has already crossed the legal line by launching this preventive war.

“The violation of international law is prior”he says, questioning the legal basis of the conflict. In that sense, emphasizes that the so-called “preventive war” – an argument used in different interventions – is not recognized in the international legal frameworkwhich only contemplates the use of force in cases of legitimate defense or with authorization from the UN Security Council.

Tucci warns that a possible offensive against Iranian infrastructure could rapidly escalate the conflict in the Middle East and warns that Iran maintains responsiveness.

“It has not been completely neutralized. There are estimates that indicate that it still retains a significant part of its missile arsenal,” he points out, while mentioning the use of drones, ballistic missiles and maintaining the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as part of his strategy.

“Iran’s resistance capacity has been underestimated”concludes the analyst, who anticipates an uncertain scenario: Trump’s threats could remain in the realm of deterrence, but if they materialize, the conflict could enter a phase of greater intensity and unforeseeable regional consequences.

Leaving civilians without electricity could be a war crime

For his part, the international analyst Francisco Belaunde Matossian warns The Commerce yes trump complies with its threats, a complex debate opens about the limits of international humanitarian law and the risk of directly affecting the civilian population.

“In war, only military objectives can be attacked.. Attacking civilians is a war crime. and leaving it without electricity could also constitute it, because it is an indirect way of affecting it.”he explains. In this sense, he points out that Any action that does not have a clear military objective could be considered a violation of international law.

However, Belaunde acknowledges that The United States could justify these attacks under the argument that it is dual-use infrastructure. “Bridges can be used to transport troops or weapons, and energy sources also feed the armed forces. That would be the argument”he maintains. However, He questions whether this military use justifies the impact on the civilian population, which would end up deprived of basic services and mobility.

The specialist also emphasizes that, although theoretically these attacks could be considered war crimes, In practice, there are few clear precedents for condemnations for the destruction of civil infrastructure. “There have been cases of bombings of infrastructure, such as in Lebanon in 2006, but I do not remember specific sentences for destroying bridges or facilities. The sanctions have been more for murders of civilians or destruction of cultural heritage”precise.

Beyond the legal level, Belaunde questions the political impact of Trump’s statements. “He himself has said that he is not interested in international law and that the only thing that can limit his actions is his own morality. “This reflects a weakening of international humanitarian law by the current administration.”he states.

Finally, the analyst warns about the possible consequences of an escalation. If the United States carries out attacks against Iranian infrastructure, it warns that Tehran has the capacity to respond and could hit energy facilities throughout the region. “A drone or missile always leaks, even with advanced defense systems. We have already seen damage to gas installations,” points out.

According to Belaunde, a scenario of crossed attacks on energy infrastructure could trigger a global crisis. “If oil and gas production in the region is interrupted, we could face a crisis even worse than that of 1973,” warns, with possible direct effects on economies dependent on energy imports such as Peru.