![\"'ENEMIES](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-130040831,imgsize-435536,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/130040831.jpg\" "\\"'ENEMIES")
<\/div>\nUS President Donald Trump on Sunday threatened Iran with a profanity-filled social media post, ordering the country to open the Strait of Hormuz or otherwise face hell.In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote, “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F******’ Strait, you crazy b*******, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.“ <\/p>\n Watch<\/span><\/p>\n ‘ENEMIES WERE GETTING CLOSER’: Trump Shares Inside Details Of U.S. F-15E Pilot Rescue In Iran<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n With this, many fear that Trump, along with his high-ranking officials, seems to be supporting serious war crimes under international law.Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty International\u2019s senior director of research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns, said that intentionally attacking civilian infrastructure such as power plants is generally prohibited under international law.\u201cIntentionally attacking civilian infrastructure such as power plants is generally prohibited. Even in the limited cases that they qualify as military targets, a party still cannot attack power plants if this may cause disproportionate harm to civilians,” she told the Guardian.According to the report, the principle was underlined in 2024 when the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Russia\u2019s former defence minister Sergei Shoigu and Russian general Valery Gerasimov, who were accused of directing widespread attacks on Ukraine\u2019s power infrastructure and causing excessive harm to civilians.Sarah Yager, Washington director of Human Rights Watch, told the Guardian that crippling Iran\u2019s power plants would be \u201cdevastating to the Iranian people,\u201d cutting electricity to hospitals, water supplies, and other vital civilian services. She added: \u201cThe US military has protocols to constrain such harm, but when the president speaks this way, it risks signaling that those constraints are optional, making this moment especially dangerous.\u201dInternational law allows attacks on energy plants or other civilian targets only if they primarily support military activity. Tom Dannenbaum, professor at Stanford Law School, said Trump\u2019s statements suggested otherwise. \u201cThe reference to the \u2018stone age\u2019 indicates objects would be targeted simply because they support modern society in Iran, which has nothing to do with military contribution\u2014the necessary condition for lawful targeting in war,\u201d he explained.Additionally, more than 100 US experts in international law from universities including Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and the University of California, on Thursday said that conduct of US forces and statements by senior US officials \u201craise serious concerns about violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including potential war crimes.\u201dThe letter, published on the website of the policy journal Just Security, flagged Trump\u2019s comment last month that the US may conduct strikes on Iran \u201cjust for fun.\u201d It also cited comments by the Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, who told reporters that the US did not fight with \u201cstupid rules of engagement.\u201dThe experts also said they were \u201cseriously concerned about strikes that have hit schools, health facilities, and homes,\u201d noting an attack on a school in Tehran on the first day of the war that killed more than 160 children and teachers.Determining what qualifies as a civilian object and how to apply proportionality when striking civilian objects that serve military purposes are among the most complex issues in international humanitarian law.Under Article 52 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1977, \u201ccivilian objects,\u201d such as infrastructure, are defined by what they are not: military objectives whose destruction offers no clear military advantage.Central to this is the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants. Rule 10 of customary international humanitarian law\u2014applicable in both international and internal armed conflicts\u2014states: \u201cCivilian objects are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they are military objectives.\u201dThis principle imposes obligations on all parties: attackers must avoid targeting civilian objects, and defending parties must avoid placing military assets among civilians. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court explicitly criminalizes intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects that are not military targets.Even when a civilian object is deemed a military target, international law requires balancing potential harm to the civilian population. Since World War II, these protections have become increasingly precise, but the US and its allies have previously carried out controversial attacks on civilian infrastructure, including Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War and Serbian power plants.<\/div>\n\n