3 conflict crimes Donald Trump is threatening to commit – and who may cease him

Donald Trump somehow found a new level of threat against Iran this morning, with his warning that failing to reach a deal before tonight’s deadline would result in the US destroying “a whole civilisation”

View Image

Donald Trump somehow found a new level of threat against Iran this morning, with his warning that failing to reach a deal before tonight’s deadline would result in the US destroying “a whole civilisation”.

Many have seen this as the hyperbole of a mentally unstable, barely comprehensible blowhard who almost always backs down from the brink.

But even if he does chicken out, the fact that the President of the United States would even make such a barbaric, inhumane threat is new territory for the world. And one day he might even follow through on something.

Here’s all of the threats Trump and his administration have made that could constitute a war crime – and what the consequences could be.

1. Genocide

Let’s start with the big one.

Trump this morning posted on Truth Social with regard to Iran: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”

The UN’s definition of ‘Genocide’ refers to acts committed with the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

So Trump’s post definitely ticks the boxes of a threat of genocide.

But what law would that actually break? Well, the US is a signatory to the 1948 Genocide Convention, which could land the country – though not necessarily Trump himself – in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.

And while proving it in court is a notoriously high bar, there have been cases – notably in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia – where individual tribunals and the ICJ have declared genocides have taken place and held countries responsible for them under the Genocide Convention.

2. Pillaging

Slight curveball, because Trump has only really threatened this one in passing, and indicated that it probably won’t happen. But he told reporters yesterday that his preferred outcome of the war would be for America to take “the oil” from Iran and make money from it.

This is possibly top of mind because it very much seems to have been the plan in Venezuela.

“We are obliterating their country, and I hate to do it, and they just don’t want to say ‘uncle.’ They don’t want to cry, as the expression goes, ‘unlcle.’ But they will.

“And if they don’t, they’ll have no bridges, no power plants, no anything. I won’t go further because there are other things that are worse than those two, and we might have – well, if I had my choice, what would I like to do? Take the oil. Unfortunately, the American people would like to see us come home.”

He added: “If it were up to me, I’d like to keep the oil. I just don’t think the people of the United States would really understand it.”

This would constitute pillaging – the unlawful, forced seizure of public or private property during armed conflict. The practice is strictly forbidden by The Rome Statute and the Geneva Convention.

Unfortunately, as Trump is doubtless aware, the US is a signatory to neither. Nor is it a member of the International Criminal Court, which would likely adjudicate infractions of those international laws.

3. Targeting civilian infrastructure

Here’s the one that is most likely to actually take place, perhaps as soon as tonight.

Deliberate attacks against civilian objects are banned under the Geneva Convention and are broadly considered war crimes.

The bombing of bridges, while it would be extremely problematic for Iran’s economy and ability to wage war, wouldn’t necessarily be immediately catastrophic.

Losing the power grid, on the other hand, would almost immediately cause the deaths of countless civilians. To start with anyone on a life support machine in a hospital would be done for. And within days the devastation of total loss of power would begin to affect clean water and food supplies.

As mentioned before, the US isn’t a signatory to the Geneva Convention, so Trump couldn’t be hauled up to The Hague. But it would cause widespread alarm and disapproval from allies around the world which could have diplomatic consequences for decades to come.

Is anyone going to stop him?

Well, maybe. US military personnel are duty-bound to follow lawful orders.

But they also have a legal duty, codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to disobey manifestly illegal orders. That would include laws that violate the Law of War Manual or international law.

But there are severe penalties for disobeying orders that – while they may be immoral – are not illegal. There would be dismissals, trials, a potential breakdown of the chain of command.

The most notable example of this in US history is the My Lai Massacre, during the Vietnam War, during which Helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson famously intervened to stop American troops from killing civilians, threatening to open fire on his own side.