"Trump's threat was so broad it did not seem to account for the harm to civilians, prompting Democrats in Congress, some United Nations officials and scholars in military law to say such strikes would violate international law."
"Even if specific civilian infrastructure were to qualify as a military objective, an attack would still be prohibited if it risks excessive incidental civilian harm."
"What Trump is saying is, 'We don't care about precision, we don't care about impact on civilians, we're just going to take out all of Iranian power generating capacity.'"
"Shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint in the Persian Gulf through which 20% of the world's oil normally flows, has been all but halted, sending oil prices soaring and roiling the stock market."
President Trump threatened to destroy bridges and power plants in Iran, raising concerns among military law experts about potential war crimes. The legality of such actions hinges on whether these targets are legitimate military objectives and if civilian harm is minimized. Critics, including Democrats and U.N. officials, argue that these threats violate international law. Trump's rhetoric suggests a disregard for civilian impact, with experts warning that cutting power could endanger lives. The situation escalated tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, affecting global oil prices.
Read at Fast Company
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]