Destroying Iran's electric and water supply is a war crime
- Genocide Watch
- 2 days ago
- 7 min read
Updated: 3 minutes ago
PHOTO-ILLUSTRATION: by WIRED Middle East Staff based on image from Getty Images
The Illegality of Trump’s Threats to Destroy Civilian Infrastructure in Iran
By Karolina Bonde, Genocide Watch
6 April 2026
On March 21, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum to the Islamic Republic of Iran demanding that it reopen the Strait of Hormuz. If Iran did not comply, Trump threatened to “obliterate” Iranian power plants, beginning with the largest one. Days later, he escalated further, posting on his Truth Social platform that if a deal was not reached “shortly,” the United States would “conclude our lovely ‘stay’ in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island.” Trump has since repeated his threats, and gave a deadline of midnight, April 7 for Iran to comply, after which US bombing would begin to destroy all Iranian power plants and bridges.
These were not loose remarks. They were specific, repeated, public threats by the President of the United States, commander-in-chief of US military forces to order the destruction of civilian infrastructure on which tens of millions of people depend for electricity, clean water, hospital operations, food distribution, and survival.
On April 1, 2026, Trump went further, threatening in a national address to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages.”(sic) The same day, over U.S 100 international law experts including senior professors at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and the University of California, former government legal advisors, and former Judge Advocates General published an open letter in Just Security concluding that U.S. strikes since February 28 are “a clear violation of the United Nations Charter” and that Trump’s statements “raise serious concerns about violations of international humanitarian law, including potential war crimes.”
The White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, declined to repudiate the threats, stating only that U.S. armed forces “will always act within the confines of the law.” Similarly, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine, asserted that the military “strikes lawful targets in accordance with normal procedures.” However, a review of the legal framework governing armed conflict makes clear that, if these threats were to be carried out, they would result in serious violations of international humanitarian law. They would be war crimes.
International Humanitarian Law: The US, Israel, and Iran are States-Parties
International humanitarian law (IHL) is binding on all parties to armed conflict. Its principles are clear, well established, and not subject to derogation or presidential override. All members of the United Nations, including the USA, Israel, and Iran are States-Party to all four Geneva Conventions. The USA, Israel, and Iran and 99 other nations are States-Party to the Hague Conventions of 1907. All nations are bound by customary international law, including the laws established by the Nuremberg Tribunal.
175 nations are States-Party to Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. The USA, Israel, and Iran are not States-Party to Additional Protocol I, but most authorities on international law hold that Additional Protocol I’s near universal acceptance has made it applicable to all nations as customary international law (jus cogens)
Collective punishment and war crimes
Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits collective penalties and all measures of intimidation or terrorism. Threatening to cut off electricity and water to an entire population as a means of coercing political compliance clearly constitutes collective punishment. This conclusion was echoed by Yusra Suedi, Assistant Professor of International Law at the University of Manchester who described Trump’s threat as “clearly an act of collective punishment,” adding: “You can’t deliberately harm an entire civilian population to pressure its government.”
Threats to give no quarter
Article 23 of the Hague Conventions of 1907, customary international law (jus cogens), and Article 40 of Additional Protocol I prohibit threats and orders to “give no quarter”, i.e., to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten as such, or to conduct hostilities on that basis.
US War Secretary Hegseth’s threats to give no quarter, if implemented by orders to give no quarter, constitute war crimes.
Water and power infrastructure enjoy special protection.
Article 54 of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibits attacking, destroying, removing, or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. It specifically lists “drinking water installations and supplies” among such protected objects.
The provision exists precisely because such infrastructure cannot be separated from civilian life: when it collapses, people die from thirst, disease, and the cascading failure of hospitals, agriculture, and sanitation systems.
The principles of distinction and proportionality
The principle of distinction is a cornerstone of international humanitarian law. It permits attacks only against military objectives namely, objects and persons that make an effective contribution to military action. Power plants and water desalination facilities, by their nature, serve entire civilian populations and are therefore presumptively civilian objects.
Distinction is the principle in international humanitarian law whereby belligerents must distinguish between combatants and protected civilians. Proportionality is the principle whereby belligerents must make sure that the harm caused to protected civilians or civilian property is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected by an attack on a legitimate military objective.
Even where infrastructure has dual military and civilian use, Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental civilian harm that would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Iran operates a unified electrical grid: military and civilian users draw from the same source. Amnesty International’s March 2026 analysis concludes that attacking Iran’s power plants “would be disproportionate and thus unlawful under international humanitarian law and could amount to a war crime.” The cascading effects would extend far beyond Iran: much of the Gulf region depends on electricity-powered desalination for its drinking water.
The International Criminal Court has charged Russian commanders for destroying power stations in Ukraine.
On March 5, 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for senior Russian commanders Lt. Gen. Sergei Kobylash and Adm. Viktor Sokolov for directing "a campaign of strikes against numerous electric power plants and sub-stations" across Ukraine, finding reasonable grounds for "the war crime of directing attacks at civilian objects.”
Kenneth Roth, former Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, has stated: “I see no difference between what Trump is threatening to do in Iran and what the ICC charged Russian commanders for doing in Ukraine.”
U.S. Domestic Law:
The War Crimes Act of 1996 was passed by overwhelming majorities from both political parties and signed into law by President Clinton. It incorporates into US law all obligations of the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions. It applies to all members of the US Armed Forces.
The War Crimes Act of 1996 criminalizes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, including attacks against civilian objects and conduct causing excessive civilian harm.
The Department of Defense Law of War Manual requires adherence to the principles of distinction and proportionality, prohibiting attacks directed at civilian objects or those expected to cause disproportionate harm.
These rules reflect binding legal obligations on U.S. forces, meaning that orders to deliberately destroy infrastructure indispensable to civilian survival are war crimes under both international and domestic law.
US military personnel ordered to commit war crimes are obligated since Nuremberg to refuse to carry out such orders. If they do carry out orders to commit war crimes, they may be prosecuted. Superior orders are not a defense. Under US law, war crimes may be punished by life imprisonment or death. Superior orders may only be used for mitigation of sentence.
The Stakes Could Not Be Higher
If the threats by President Trump and War Secretary Hegseth to destroy Iranian electric power plants are carried out, the consequences will be devastating. Hospitals will go dark. Water pumping stations will fail. Sewage systems will collapse, the deaths will be counted in the tens of thousands, most of them civilians who had no part in any political decisions by Iran’s tyrannical leaders.
The harm will not stop at Iran's borders: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the UAE depend on desalination for the majority of their drinking water. Their electrical power depends on generators run by the gas they obtain from the Persian Gulf.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has threatened to retaliate if Trump proceeds with his threats by targeting the “power plants of the occupying regime [USA] and the power plants of regional countries that supply electricity to USA bases, as well as the economic, industrial, and energy infrastructure in which Americans hold shares.”
The entire region could be plunged into a humanitarian catastrophe affecting hundreds of millions of people.
The law is unambiguous. The human cost is foreseeable. The consensus of experts on international humanitarian law is overwhelming.
If their threats become military orders and action, President Trump and Secretary of War Hegseth will be guilty of war crimes.
Genocide Watch Recommends:
President Trump must immediately and unequivocally retract all threats to destroy civilian infrastructure power plants, water stations, and desalination facilities in Iran.
The Islamic Republic of Iran must immediately retract its threats to target power plants, desalination facilities, and energy infrastructure in the United States, Israel, and Gulf states.
President Trump, War Secretary Hegseth, and the US Congress must make clear public commitments that all military operations must comply with International Humanitarian Law, including the principles of distinction, proportionality, and the protection of objects indispensable to civilian survival.
The US Congress must exercise its constitutional responsibilities and publicly reject the administration's contempt for international law.
The UN, US Congress, European Union, NATO, regional organizations, and international bar associations should declare that threats to destroy civilian infrastructure are incitements to commit war crimes, warning signs of crimes against humanity and genocide, and if carried out, war crimes whether committed by Iran, Israel, or the USA.
