What international law says about Trump's threats to bomb Iran's bridges and power plants

## Summary
For perspective on President Trump’s talk about bombing Iran’s bridges and power plants and whether that's legal under international law, Geoff Bennett spoke with retired Lieutenant Colonel Rachel VanLandingham. Amna Nawaz: For perspective now on President Trump's talk about bombing all of Iran's bridges and power plants and whether that's legal under international law, we turn to retired Lieutenant Colonel Rachel VanLandingham. Amna Nawaz: Well, Colonel, let me ask you, if I may, if the military and their lawyers can argue that, yes, the power plants provide electricity to civilians and they use these bridges, but that the regime also gets electricity from these power plants, that these same bridges are used by members of the Iranian military forces, does that justify making them targets? Rachel VanLandingham (ret.): You have to make an individual case-by-case analysis of each bridge and every power plant that is being considered to be a lawful military objective, because, first of all, just saying, by its use or intended use, has to make an effective contribution to military action, not the regime in general, but to military action.

## Article Content
For perspective on President Trump’s talk about bombing Iran’s bridges and power plants and whether that's legal under international law, Geoff Bennett spoke with retired Lieutenant Colonel Rachel VanLandingham. She spent 20 years in the Air Force and is now a professor at Southwestern Law School.

Amna Nawaz:

For perspective now on President Trump's talk about bombing all of Iran's bridges and power plants and whether that's legal under international law, we turn to retired Lieutenant Colonel Rachel VanLandingham. She spent 20 years in the Air Force and is now a professor at Southwestern Law School.

Welcome back to the show.

You heard in our reporting there the repeated threats by President Trump to bomb Iranian infrastructure. He said specifically there's a plan to decimate every bridge in Iran, to destroy every power plant. You have heard the concerns, Colonel, about this potentially being a war crime.

Based on your expertise, is it?

Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham (ret.):

He's both threatening a war crime and he's engaging in a war crime through that rhetoric itself. And I will explain that.

First of all, the law of war, that's not just international law. It's U.S. law. And our military members are deeply trained and steeped in this law. The law of war prohibits measures of intimidation against a civilian population, including threats of violence whose primary purpose is to sow terror amongst that civilian population.

Those civilians whose electricity ensures that there's refrigeration for their medicine for those that are dependent on refrigerated medicine, that provides electricity to hospitals, where there are lifesaving operations ongoing, where babies are being born, whose electricity is helping ensure that the water is purified and clean, they are terrified.

It's reasonably foreseeable to believe that such rhetoric will sow terror amongst the civilian population, and, therefore, one can infer that that's what President Trump intends. So he's committing a war crime just through that language.

Second of all, he's threatening to make our military engage in war crimes and therefore stain their honor and their soul and come back with moral injury. Why? Because threatening to destroy every bridge and every single power plant in the entire state of Iran is called an indiscriminate attack. That is a war crime.

Why? Because the law of war says we don't engage in total war for anymore. We don't believe that children are the enemy and that civilians are the enemy. The law of war says, look, we're going to divide the battlefield, which in modern days is often a city like Tehran, into civilian objects, and they're protected, and civilian people, they're protected.

And then there's military targets, lawful military objectives that make an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction provides a definite military advantage. We divide the world into those two camps. By saying we're just going to bomb everything, bomb every single bridge, every single power plant that serves civilians, that is threatening indiscriminate attack.

And it is one of the most horrible war crimes there are because it brings us back, straight back down the slippery slope to total warfare.

Amna Nawaz:

Well, Colonel, let me ask you, if I may, if the military and their lawyers can argue that, yes, the power plants provide electricity to civilians and they use these bridges, but that the regime also gets electricity from these power plants, that these same bridges are used by members of the Iranian military forces, does that justify making them targets?

Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham (ret.):

You have to make an individual case-by-case analysis of each bridge and every power plant that is being considered to be a lawful military objective, because, first of all, just saying, by its use or intended use, has to make an effective contribution to military action, not the regime in general, but to military action.

Second -- and so a bridge, therefore, like the bridge that was destroyed last week, a bridge could make an effective contribution to military action because it's being used as a resupply line. Logistical lines are often a legitimate lawful military objectives in war, despite the fact that they also have a civilian use.

Their destruction at the time has to provide a definite military advantage, but that's not the end of the analysis. The law of war goes even further to say, OK, once you have determined that there's some kind of military connection here, there's a connection to military action, and this destruction or disablement will produce a military advantage, then you have to look at, will civilians be harmed?

And, of course, by taking out power plants that are civilian in nature, civilians will be harmed, because civilian power plants provide civilians electricity to their homes, to water purification plants, to hospitals, you name it, right?

This is why the United States strongly condemned Russia a

---

## Expert Analysis

### Merits
- And then there's military targets, lawful military objectives that make an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction provides a definite military advantage.
- Rachel VanLandingham (ret.): You have to make an individual case-by-case analysis of each bridge and every power plant that is being considered to be a lawful military objective, because, first of all, just saying, by its use or intended use, has to make an effective contribution to military action, not the regime in general, but to military action.
- Second -- and so a bridge, therefore, like the bridge that was destroyed last week, a bridge could make an effective contribution to military action because it's being used as a resupply line.
- Their destruction at the time has to provide a definite military advantage, but that's not the end of the analysis.

### Areas for Consideration
N/A

### Implications
- And I will explain that.
- It's reasonably foreseeable to believe that such rhetoric will sow terror amongst the civilian population, and, therefore, one can infer that that's what President Trump intends.
- Amna Nawaz: Well, Colonel, let me ask you, if I may, if the military and their lawyers can argue that, yes, the power plants provide electricity to civilians and they use these bridges, but that the regime also gets electricity from these power plants, that these same bridges are used by members of the Iranian military forces, does that justify making them targets?
- Second -- and so a bridge, therefore, like the bridge that was destroyed last week, a bridge could make an effective contribution to military action because it's being used as a resupply line.

### Expert Commentary
This article covers military, war, law topics. Notable strengths include discussion of military. Readability: Flesch-Kincaid grade 0.0. Word count: 1143.