Trump's Iran Plan: War Crimes or Legitimate Tactic?

0:00On April 7, Donald Trump has been talking tough about bombing Iran, back to the Stone Age, targeting things like desalination plants, power grids, and bridges. Experts say that would straight up violate international rules on war crimes because the harm to civilians would far outweigh any military gain. It's called the proportionality rule, and hitting those dual-use spots could wreck hospitals, water supplies, and daily life for millions. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled presidents get broad immunity for official acts, so Trump might dodge charges here at home. But military leaders like a defense secretary couldn't just follow illegal orders, they'd have to refuse or face their own trials. Past U.S. war shift tactics after backlash, like using temporary blackouts instead of total destruction in places like Serbia and Iraq. Folks are drawing parallels to Russia, where the International Criminal Court charged commanders for hitting Ukraine's power plants. Human rights groups pushed the Pentagon to change back in the 90s, after the first Gulf

1:03War showed how deadly those strikes can be to civilians. Internationally, options exist even without U.S. help. Iran could join the ICC and give it retroactive power, like Ukraine did against Russia. Or, countries could use universal jurisdiction in their own courts, though sitting leaders get a pass until out of office. Researchers like the EU or NATO might even set up a special tribunal for aggression and war crimes in Iran. Bottom line, while no one storming the White House, a future president could hand Trump over, just like happened with leaders from Serbia and the First-E. Philippines. It's a long shot, but pushing these paths keeps the pressure on to uphold global laws no matter who's in power.