Would Trump’s Threatened Attacks on Iran’s Infrastructure Be a War Crime?
Details
- Publish Date:
- April 8, 2026
- Author(s):
-
- Greene, Connor
- Source:
- Time
- Related Person(s):
Summary
Tom Dannenbaum is a Stanford University Law School professor of nuclear security.
Hathaway and Dannenbaum were among the co-authors of an open letter from international law experts raising concerns about war crimes in the Iran conflict. Koh was one of more than 100 experts who signed the letter.
Q: Trump has threatened to bomb Iranian infrastructure, including power plants, desalination plants, bridges. Can you explain what constitutes a war crime, and where those targets fall in that definition?
Dannenbaum: Everything that is not military by nature, [which] would include things like tanks, munitions, military bases and fortifications … is presumptively civilian. In other words, there’s not a distinction between civilian infrastructure and other things. There’s a distinction between civilian objects and military objectives. And everything starts as a civilian object, until, by its nature, purpose, location or use, it makes an effective contribution to military action, such that its destruction or neutralization would yield a definite military advantage.
Q: Where do nuclear power plants fall in the mix?
Dannenbaum: With respect to nuclear power plants in particular, the law applies a heightened set of protections against targeting. The way that the law characterizes this class of specially protected objects is “works or installations containing dangerous forces.” The core examples are nuclear power plants, dams, dikes. The reason is that destroying those things would potentially cause a release of dangerous forces with severe losses for the civilian population. Directing attacks against such objects is presumptively unlawful.