Reza Nasri has argued that since the U.S. president, Donald Trump, has repeatedly stated that reopening the Strait of Hormuz is not important for the United States, his threat to destroy Iranian power plants cannot conceivably provide any “definite military advantage” to the U.S.
Targeting power plants — civilian objects that supply electricity to hospitals, water treatment, civilian homes and food refrigeration — violates the core principle of distinction (Additional Protocol I, Articles 48 & 52). Power stations are not military objectives unless they are making an “effective contribution to military action” at the precise time of attack and their destruction offers a “definite military advantage.”
President Trump has himself repeatedly declared that reopening the Strait of Hormuz is not important to the United States. He has stated publicly that the Strait “doesn’t really affect” America, that “we don’t use” it, “we don’t need it,” and that other countries should handle it. Having conceded that the free navigation of the Strait offers no meaningful strategic value or security interest to the United States, the destruction of Iranian power plants cannot conceivably provide any “definite military advantage” to America.
Without that advantage, the power stations are not lawful military objectives. Attacking them would be purely punitive and coercive — a war crime under the Rome Statute (Art. 8(2)(b)(ii) — intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects).
This pre-announced war crime must be halted. By publicly declaring the precise time, targets, and punitive purpose of strikes that he himself has already conceded offer the United States no military advantage whatsoever, President Trump has removed any possible claim of necessity or proportionality. The United Nations Security Council is under an immediate Chapter VII obligation to demand cessation of the threat and, if necessary, authorise measures to prevent the imminent aggression and the mass civilian harm that would follow.
Simultaneously, this conduct must be addressed under United States domestic law. The War Crimes Act criminalises such violations of the Geneva Conventions when committed by any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction, while the President’s own words supply the evidence of intent required for accountability before Congress, the Department of Justice, or any court exercising universal jurisdiction.
