Donald Trump has made alarming statements suggesting potential war crimes against Iran, operating under the assumption that he may evade accountability. Unfortunately, recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court have contributed to his belief in his immunity from legal repercussions within the country. However, there exist international avenues for accountability that extend beyond the limitations of domestic law. While pursuing such options may prove challenging, the unprecedented behavior of a leading global figure openly disregarding international humanitarian principles necessitates a response.
Trump’s intentions appear to include the commission of war crimes, as he has publicly stated plans to bomb Iran and devastate its infrastructure, which he claims would set the nation “back to the stone ages” and obliterate its cultural heritage. His threats include targeting critical civilian facilities such as desalination plants, power generation stations, and bridges.
Even if these infrastructures serve dual purposes, including military use, the anticipated military benefits of their destruction are significantly outweighed by the severe repercussions for civilians. This perspective is rooted in the principle of proportionality found in international humanitarian law, which dictates that if the civilian impact of an attack is disproportionate to the military advantage gained, it is deemed unlawful.
For instance, targeting a nation’s electricity infrastructure can have widespread ramifications, affecting essential services such as sanitation, healthcare, and food preservation. This principle is reflected in the actions taken by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has charged four Russian military leaders for attacking electrical infrastructure in Ukraine. The Pentagon has adjusted its protocols in the past; during the first Gulf War, it conducted similar attacks, but subsequent scrutiny from organizations like Human Rights Watch prompted a shift in military strategy.
During NATO’s intervention in Serbia in 1999, for example, the Pentagon opted to temporarily disable power plants rather than destroy them outright. A similar approach was adopted during the 2003 Iraq invasion. This evolving doctrine should ideally be applied to any military action in Iran, but Trump’s comments indicate a preference for total destruction.
In the ongoing legal case of Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court has determined that a president may possess either complete or presumed immunity for actions taken while in office. This ruling poses a significant barrier to any potential prosecution by a future American administration.
Nevertheless, this ruling does not exempt other officials, such as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth or military leaders, from accountability. They hold a legal obligation to reject any manifestly unlawful orders, such as those that would lead to the destruction of Iran’s infrastructure. Although Trump labeled Democratic Congress members as “seditious” for emphasizing this duty, their stance aligns with legal principles, and Trump’s assertions do not.
While Trump could face prosecution, the recent Supreme Court ruling limits this possibility within the United States. A more viable option would be to pursue charges through the ICC. However, Iran’s non-member status means the ICC lacks jurisdiction over crimes committed on its soil. Additionally, any attempt to grant jurisdiction through the UN Security Council would likely be vetoed by the Trump administration, though a subsequent U.S. government might take a different stance.
Despite this, immediate action could be taken if the Iranian government were to join the ICC and grant it retroactive jurisdiction, akin to Ukraine’s approach to address Russian war crimes. However, Iran may hesitate to pursue this path due to the risk of exposing its own officials to prosecution for past actions, such as the alleged crime against humanity involving the deaths of thousands of protesters in January.
Another avenue for prosecution exists that does not rely on Iran’s participation but would necessitate collective effort. The principle of universal jurisdiction allows nations to prosecute certain severe crimes committed abroad, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator. This concept originated in the fight against piracy, which was deemed a crime against all, thus enabling prosecution by any state. Today, it applies to crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and torture.
However, a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2002 complicates this; it stated that universal jurisdiction cannot be invoked in national courts to prosecute current heads of state, thereby protecting them from legal action while in office. This means Trump would remain shielded until he vacates his position.
Yet, the ICJ clarified that certain international criminal tribunals could hold such officials accountable. It cited examples like the tribunals established for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and importantly, the ICC, which was formed by a treaty among nations rather than through the Security Council.
In light of this, the Council of Europe is currently working to create a special tribunal for prosecuting the crime of aggression related to the conflict in Ukraine. While the ICC can address war crimes, it lacks jurisdiction over aggression against a nation that is not an ICC member, such as Russia. Consequently, the Council of Europe is establishing a tribunal that fits within the exceptions outlined by the ICJ.
A similar approach could be adopted regarding Iran, whereby a coalition of countries—such as the European Union, NATO, or the G7 excluding the United States—could establish an international tribunal to address potential war crimes committed by Trump in the context of his threats against Iran.
