Trump threats cause dilemma for US officers: disobey orders or commit war crimes.
Legal experts say attacking Iran’s infrastructure would constitute a war crime – but would military officers be held responsible?
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”.
He wrote on his Truth Social platform on Sunday: “There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.”
Three days earlier, the president had made clear what he meant by “Power Day”.
“We are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously,” he said in prepared remarks that were amplified by the state department’s social media accounts.
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.”
They noted that Trump’s boast that he would bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages”, and the order by his defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, to show “no quarter, no mercy” were not just “plainly illegal” but they also represented a rupture from the moral and legal principles that US military personnel had been “trained to follow their entire careers”.
I served under a senior officer (Canadian) from WWII. Somehow the topic of illegal orders came up over drinks in the officers mess one night. He told me explicitly to make sure I declined any illegal orders such as the ones Trump is threatening. Of course the Armed Forces should never have attacked Iran in the first place. That is an illegal war of aggression no different than what Hitler did to Poland. I suspect even worse because not only was the war a war of aggression it was started under the guise of diplomacy. The US and Iran were negotiating a peace deal when the ISA (Israeli States of America) attacked. That is highly illegal and known as perfidy.
The key difference between Iran and Iraq is that there were UN resolutions in effect re: Iraq. When Saddam Hussein flouted requirements to let inspectors in, President Bush already had UN-approval to use force. Nonetheless, he also sought approval from Congress. Trump had neither.
@beckyromero Exactly. Iraq was a bad war but the one in Iran is absolutely insane. No reason for it nor any plan in executing it then to top it all off they are firing senior officers who are saying no to them!
@beckyromero Which was a lie to begin with. The goal of the ISA was to destroy Iran so Israel could beat up all its 'enemies' without fear of Iran saying no to Israel's evils.
@sunsporter1649 Cute meme but what you are suggesting is illegal under international law. Not to mention which there was no threat from Iran. Unlike the US who has never had a year in the last 200 years where it was not engaged in war or the work up to war. Most of them started by the USA Iran has not started any wars. It resolved based on its religion not to build nukes. The US has used nukes as soon as they had developed them.
@hippyjoe1955 So you are of the opinion the the raghead terrorists using terror bombing of innocent civilian women and children around the world as perfectly legal under your reading of international law, eh
