Debate Over Potential War Crimes by Trump Amid Ongoing Middle East Conflict

War Crimes Debate: A Divided Opinion

As the intense conflict in the Middle East continues, a pressing question has emerged, dividing experts in global politics and international law: Could Donald Trump, the President of the world's largest democracy, face accusations of war crimes? This discussion intensified following the U.S. targeting of Iran's civilian infrastructure.

Attacks on Civilian Targets: Strategy or Crime?

Statements from President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have alarmed human rights organizations. Trump has openly threatened to send Iran back to the 'Stone Age' and to 'wipe out' entire civilizations.

Controversial Attacks and Their Consequences

Sharif University of Technology, often referred to as Iran's 'MIT', was bombed. Additionally, an attack on a girls' school in Minab resulted in the deaths of approximately 170 children. While the U.S. describes this as an 'intelligence failure', international law experts consider it a serious issue of 'failure to confirm the target'.

Public bridges and power plants have also been targeted, which appear to lack immediate military significance.

Legal Implications of Military Actions

As the Commander-in-Chief, Trump oversees U.S. military operations. However, before any legal proceedings can be considered, it must be determined whether the actions of U.S. forces in Iran constitute war crimes.

The ongoing war in the Middle East shows no signs of abating. Recently, the situation escalated further when the U.S. targeted Kharg Island, prompting Trump to issue threats while the IRGC warned that Gulf Cooperation Council countries are at risk.

Escalating Threats and Their Legal Ramifications

The Iranian regime, which Trump vowed to overthrow, remains firmly in power. As the Trump administration seeks a way out of this crisis, its rhetoric and military actions increasingly target civilian infrastructure in Iran, including universities and transportation systems.

Trump's aggressive stance includes threats to return Iran to the 'Stone Age', a phrase that Defense Secretary Hegseth has expressed approval for. Hegseth has promised 'massive attacks' on Iran, using highly aggressive language to describe U.S. operations. Critics argue that Trump has become a 'madman' in this context, openly threatening to attack civilian infrastructure, which many experts classify as war crimes.

International Law and Accountability

In pressuring Iran to negotiate on U.S. terms, Trump warned that 'a whole civilization could end tonight, never to return'. This raises a critical question: If the U.S. is attacking universities, bridges, and civilian infrastructure, can these actions be classified as war crimes under international law? Legal experts suggest that the answer hinges on whether these targets had a clear military purpose and whether the civilian damage was disproportionate. Deliberately targeting a college, bridge, or public building not used for military operations could be deemed a war crime.

Experts indicate that the increasing desperation of the U.S. campaign is leading to attacks that are becoming harder to justify.

Possibility of Legal Action Against Trump

In theory, yes. Heads of state cannot evade accountability for war crimes indefinitely. A letter from over 100 international law experts warned that the U.S. approach and statements regarding the Middle East conflict raise serious concerns about violations of international humanitarian law, including potential war crimes.

International tribunals have previously prosecuted world leaders. For instance, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faced war crime allegations in 2024 related to the Gaza conflict, and an arrest warrant was issued against him by the International Criminal Court. Similarly, former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic was tried for war crimes during the Balkan wars.

Challenges in Prosecuting a U.S. President

However, prosecuting Trump or any current or former U.S. president is exceedingly difficult, as the U.S. does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC over its citizens. Experts note that any attempt to prosecute Trump would require significant political change within the U.S. or cooperation from allied countries in multilateral institutions.

The attacks by the U.S. that experts consider war crimes include the controversial bombing of a girls' school in Minab, where 165-170 individuals, mostly girls aged 7-12, were killed. If investigations reveal that the U.S. failed to confirm the target or ignored clear indications that it was a civilian site, this could be classified as a war crime. Initial U.S. investigations suggest that the attack may have resulted from outdated intelligence, mistakenly identifying a school near an IRGC facility as a military target.

Broader Context of Civilian Infrastructure Attacks

It is essential to clarify that not only U.S. or Israeli forces have targeted civilian infrastructure; Iran has also engaged in similar actions against Gulf countries since the war began, which experts label as war crimes.

However, in recent days, the rhetoric from U.S. leaders targeting Iran's civilian infrastructure has escalated dangerously.

While Trump has increased threats against Iran's infrastructure, the U.S. military has bombed Sharif University of Technology in Tehran, one of Iran's most prestigious universities, established in 1966 and often compared to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Expert Criticism of U.S. Actions

Iranian-American analyst Trita Parsi criticized the attack on Sharif University, stating on X (Twitter), 'The U.S./Israel has just bombed Sharif University in Tehran. Not only is it Iran's top university, but it is also among the world's top 100 in civil engineering. Additionally, it has been a significant center for student movements against the Iranian government. And Trump just bombed it.'

Analysts have pointed to U.S. attacks on Iran's bridges, roads, and public infrastructure, suggesting that these actions lack immediate military significance and could be categorized as 'war crimes'.

Escalating Threats and Legal Considerations

Last Thursday, after the U.S. attacked a bridge connecting Tehran to Karaj, Trump threatened that if no agreement was reached soon, he would bomb Iran, sending it back to the 'Stone Age'. He even threatened a simultaneous attack on Iran's power plants and bridges.

Are U.S. attacks on Iran and threats against civilian infrastructure considered 'war crimes'? Under the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), deliberately targeting civilians or civilian property can be classified as a 'war crime'. Schools, universities, hospitals, and bridges are considered 'civilian infrastructure', provided they are not being used for any military purposes.

Legal Criteria for War Crimes

Two key legal criteria come into play: First, was the target being used by the military? Second, was the civilian damage caused by the attack disproportionate to the potential military gain? If either question is answered negatively (i.e., contrary to the law), the attack could be deemed 'illegal'.

Trump has argued that the Iranian rulers are 'animals', claiming that the real war criminals are those in power. However, his advisors have made it clear that using such language or labeling someone does not change the 'rules of war'. Traditionally, even during a brutal war, civilian sites or properties must be protected at all costs.

Concerns Raised by Military Officials

Hegseth's statements have further heightened these concerns. He has repeatedly promised more vigorous attacks on Iran, echoing Trump's threat to send Iran back to the 'Stone Age'. Experts suggest that such language indicates an intention not just to destroy military targets but also to devastate infrastructure used by civilians.

Middle East expert Wael Awad questioned in an interview, 'How can you attack a bridge that was just being constructed? This is not a military target. As the U.S. Secretary of War, he [Pete Hegseth] should be prosecuted like any other criminal. This is a war crime.'

Theoretical Possibility of Prosecution

So, can Trump be prosecuted as a war criminal? Theoretically, yes. Heads of state cannot escape accusations of war crimes forever. Slobodan Milosevic was tried after leaving office, and former Liberian President Charles Taylor was convicted by an international tribunal. In Bangladesh, the ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was sentenced to death in absentia by a domestic war crimes tribunal for using lethal force against protesters last year.

Challenges in Accountability

While experts consider U.S. military actions as war crimes, will Trump, as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. forces, be held accountable for these actions? Red Jarrar, advocacy director of the nonprofit group DAWN, stated that Trump's threats are 'clear, public evidence of criminal intent'.

Jarrar told Qatar's broadcaster Al Jazeera, 'Threatening to completely destroy a country's power grid, oil infrastructure, and water supply to pressure its government is not a negotiation strategy; it is clearly collective punishment and a war crime.'

Political Implications for Prosecution

However, the likelihood of prosecuting Trump is very low. The U.S. is not a member of the ICC and has historically refused to recognize its jurisdiction over Americans. Any attempt to prosecute Trump would require significant political change within the U.S. or cooperation from allied countries in multilateral institutions.

Can Trump be prosecuted for war crimes in the U.S.? According to international law expert Gabor Rona, 'There is no statute of limitations in U.S. war crimes law for crimes that result in death.' Rona told NPR, 'Now, of course, there will be no accountability during this administration, but in the next administration or at some point in the future, accountability could be established under U.S. law.' While prosecuting Trump for alleged war crimes may not be feasible now, if such a possibility arises, it could determine how future generations view U.S. presidents. Even if Trump never stands trial, the question of whether bombing colleges and bridges constitutes a war crime will not be resolved anytime soon.