"Rachel VanLandingham, a retired lieutenant colonel, stated that the U.S. interpretation of obligations under the law of war regarding 'war-sustaining' dual-use infrastructure has been 'pretty stretched.' She warns that the current moment could push it to 'the most extreme interpretation.'"
"VanLandingham argues that Trump's threat itself is a war crime, emphasizing that it is impermissible to use threats of violence for the prime purpose of sowing civilian terror."
"More than 100 attorneys, academics, and former government officials signed a letter expressing their 'profound concern' over the implications of U.S. military actions in Iran, particularly regarding civilian casualties."
"White House spokesperson Anna Kelly stated that 'Iran can never have a nuclear weapon,' and suggested that greater destruction could be avoided if the regime understands the seriousness of the moment and makes a deal with the United States."
The president's alarming pledge to destroy Iran's infrastructure has drawn criticism from legal experts, who argue it could constitute a war crime. Rachel VanLandingham, a former legal advisor, states that using threats to instill civilian terror is impermissible. While U.S. strikes have focused on military targets, human rights groups report increasing civilian casualties. Over 100 legal professionals have expressed deep concern over the implications of U.S. actions. The White House maintains that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons, suggesting that destruction could be avoided through negotiations.
Read at Axios
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]