As the deadline approaches for Iran to comply with demands, Donald Trump appears to be intensifying his rhetoric rather than showing any signs of regret for his threats against civilian infrastructure. The deadline is set for 8 PM ET on Tuesday.
Trump’s aspirations extend beyond mere military victory, which has thus far eluded him, as he remains far from achieving his stated objectives in the ongoing conflict. He recently expressed on social media that “a whole civilization will die, never to be brought back again,” while also proclaiming that the world is nearing “one of the most significant moments in its long and intricate history.”
This assertion may hold some truth, yet confidence in the president is waning as the conflict enters its fifth week, far exceeding the brief engagement he previously promised on March 9.
Trump’s threats to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages” echo a statement made by General Curtis LeMay, who infamously suggested in a 1965 publication that the same should happen to Vietnam. Historically, LeMay’s approach was widely criticized, particularly as carpet bombing proved ineffective against the Viet Cong, and ultimately contributed to a lack of faith in a war that the United States would ultimately lose.
LeMay’s career was marked by other reckless judgments; during the Cuban Missile Crisis, for instance, he labeled President Kennedy’s decision to blockade Cuba instead of launching an invasion as “appeasement.” Taped conversations later revealed that LeMay’s advice could have led to catastrophic consequences had Kennedy not opted for diplomacy over aggression, especially after it was revealed that the Soviet Union had placed tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba.
Kennedy’s measured communication played a critical role in averting disaster, as he carefully articulated the threats he faced while providing a means for Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to de-escalate the situation. This diplomatic effort eventually paved the way for a nuclear test ban treaty the following year.
In contrast, Trump seems to lack this diplomatic finesse as he approaches a crisis largely of his own making. With no apparent means of de-escalation and extreme rhetoric coming from both parties, he is at risk of alienating the very population he has urged to rise against their government, which would likely foster long-term animosity toward the United States.
While warfare invariably impacts civilian populations, Trump’s aggressive threats to target critical infrastructure such as power stations, desalination facilities, and bridges, if executed, could constitute war crimes. Article 52 of a 1977 protocol to the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibits attacks on civilian objects. This principle is underscored by ongoing international legal actions against Russian leaders for their attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.
Determining what constitutes a war crime can be complex, especially when the precision of weaponry contrasts with the often reckless language used by a president known for distorting facts. Nevertheless, if military action proceeds, there are strategies to minimize collateral damage, with military legal experts available to guide these decisions. The U.S. must differentiate between power plants that serve military needs and those that cater to the civilian population. Cyber-attacks could be a less destructive alternative to traditional bombing.
Similarly, while bridges facilitating troop movement may be legitimate targets, those serving local communities should be spared, just as desalination plants supplying essential water to civilians should never be attacked.
Furthermore, any damage inflicted should be temporary, aligning with Trump’s assertions of a brief military engagement, thus avoiding long-term repercussions. Iran’s demands for reparations for wartime damages present an additional reason to conduct operations with precision.
It is crucial that the United States articulates its targeting rationale to the global community. This transparency could help restore confidence in the U.S. leadership, especially as Trump has criticized allies for not supporting his military initiatives more fervently, despite not consulting them prior to taking action.
This approach would also align with a longstanding American tradition of pursuing wars that are fought for clear purposes and with plans for subsequent peace. Historical lessons from Vietnam and Iraq remind us that achieving this objective is not guaranteed. The bombings of cities such as Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki during World War II resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, each justified at the time as military necessities.
However, the Second World War was driven by commendable objectives that were effectively communicated to the public. Before the conflict ended, Franklin D. Roosevelt articulated a vision for a world founded on democratic principles and international cooperation, culminating in the establishment of the United Nations during a conference in Tehran in late 1943.
Following FDR’s death in 1945, others laid the groundwork for the international order that has since contributed to global peace. This framework was constructed not by naive idealists, but by individuals who had experienced the devastation of a global war that was universally deemed undesirable.
Effective communication played a significant role in this endeavor. The “Declaration by the United Nations” was released on January 1, 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Despite the prevailing anger, the declaration aimed to safeguard civilization rather than annihilate it. It emphasized human rights and religious freedoms for all, rather than exclusively for Christians.
