Unknown Title

Key Concepts

• Law of War (LOA): The body of international and domestic law governing the conduct of armed conflict, emphasizing the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure.
• Indiscriminate Attack: A military strike that is not directed at a specific military objective or that employs methods of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective, prohibited under international law.
• Total Warfare: A state of conflict where all resources and infrastructure, including civilian ones, are considered legitimate targets; this is largely prohibited under modern international law.
• Proportionality: A legal principle requiring that the anticipated civilian harm from an attack must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
• Military Objective: A target that makes an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction offers a definite military advantage.
• Universal Jurisdiction: A legal principle allowing states to prosecute individuals for serious crimes (like war crimes) regardless of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the perpetrators.

1. Legal Analysis of Threats Against Infrastructure

Retired Lieutenant Colonel Rachel VanLandingham argues that President Trump’s rhetoric regarding the destruction of all bridges and power plants in Iran constitutes both a threat to commit a war crime and an act that sows terror among the civilian population.

• Intimidation of Civilians: Under the Law of War, measures of intimidation—including threats of violence intended to terrorize civilians—are prohibited. VanLandingham notes that electricity is essential for refrigeration of medicine, hospital operations, and water purification. Threatening to remove these services is a direct attempt to terrorize a population.
• Rejection of Total Warfare: The expert emphasizes that modern military doctrine rejects "total warfare." The battlefield must be divided into protected civilian objects/people and legitimate military objectives. Threatening to bomb "everything" ignores these distinctions and violates the fundamental principles of the Law of War.

2. Framework for Determining Lawful Military Targets

VanLandingham outlines a rigorous, step-by-step methodology that military commanders must apply to any potential target, such as a bridge or power plant:

1. Effective Contribution: The target must make an effective contribution to military action (not just general regime support).
2. Definite Military Advantage: The destruction of the target must provide a concrete and direct military advantage.
3. Case-by-Case Analysis: Each target must be evaluated individually. A bridge used as a resupply line might be a legitimate target, but this does not grant blanket permission to destroy all bridges.
4. Proportionality Test: Even if a target has a military connection, commanders must assess whether the harm to civilians (e.g., loss of water, heat, or medical care) is excessive compared to the military advantage gained.

3. Real-World Applications and Precedents

• The Ukraine Precedent: The U.S. State Department has previously condemned Russia for war crimes specifically because they targeted Ukrainian electrical infrastructure during winter. VanLandingham highlights this as a direct parallel: if the U.S. were to target Iranian power plants without a specific, concrete military advantage, it would be committing the same type of war crime for which the U.S. has criticized Russia.

4. Guidance for Military Personnel

VanLandingham provides a clear directive for U.S. military commanders who might receive orders to execute such attacks:

• Adherence to Oaths: Commanders are obligated to follow their oath to the Constitution and the Law of War, which supersedes illegal orders.
• Professional Filtering: Military professionals must filter orders through their training, conscience, and legal obligations.
• Legal Consequences: She warns that war crimes do not have a statute of limitations and are subject to universal jurisdiction. Engaging in such acts could lead to international prosecution, effectively limiting the future mobility and safety of those involved.

Synthesis and Conclusion

The core argument presented is that the Law of War is not merely a suggestion but a binding legal framework that protects civilians from the horrors of total war. By threatening to destroy all infrastructure in Iran, the rhetoric described violates the principles of distinction and proportionality. VanLandingham concludes that military commanders have a legal and moral duty to reject such orders, as they would constitute war crimes, and that the U.S. military’s honor and legal standing depend on adhering to established international humanitarian law rather than engaging in indiscriminate destruction.