Is the U.S. threatening to commit war crimes in Iran?

0:00This message comes from EasyCater, making it easy for organizations to order food for meetings and events from favorite restaurants, set up meal programs for their employees, and manage food, all in one place at easycater. dot com. Today on State of the World, is the U.S. threatening to commit war crimes in Iran? You're listening to State of the World from NPR. We bring you the day's most vital international stories up close where they're happening. It's Wednesday, April 1st. I'm Greg Dixon. This week on social media, President Trump threatened to destroy civilian infrastructure in Iran. The threat mentioned desalination plants, a vital source of drinking water.

0:44Also this week, authorities in Kuwait said Iran attacked one of their desalination plants. Deliberately attacking essential civilian infrastructure is a war crime under international law. Yet both sides have hit civilian infrastructure in this conflict. So will there be any accountability? To answer that, we're going to hear from Gabor Rona. He directs the Law and Armed Conflict Project at Cardozo Law School and previously was a legal advisor to the Red Cross. He spoke with NPR's Scott Detrow. I want to start with this. Let's hear something from White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt, who was asked about the president's comments.

1:23And here's what she said. Of course, this administration and the United States Armed Forces will always act within the confines of the law. But with respect to achieving the full objectives of Operation Epic Fury, President Trump is going to move forward unabated. That's what the press secretary says. The Pentagon has repeatedly said the United States does not deliberately target civilians. And yet the president is talking about attacking a desalination plant. Would that be a war crime? Absolutely, Scott. both under international law and U.S. law. We have a War Crimes Act that prohibits precisely this kind of thing.

1:58It would also be a violation of laws against terrorism. It's prohibited to engage in attacks in armed conflict where the primary purpose is to spread terror among the civilian population. If you're targeting a desalination plant, then that would be an act of terrorism. Help us understand a little bit more, just because I think you cannot over-explain this enough, right? Like, here's an example. In the early days of the war, it seems like the United States accidentally bombed a girl's school. What is the difference between something like that and deliberately attacking civilian infrastructure like a desalination plant?

2:34So the difference between the attack on the school and, say, an attack on a desalination plant is that even though one might have been mistaken and the other intentional, under U.S. law, both intentional and mistaken attacks that aren't pursuant to due diligence can be war crimes. So U.S. law is clear-cut on this. International law norm seems to be clear-cut on this. Is that a fair way to understand this? I think that's right. Given that, what do you make of the fact that both sides in this war have been so blatant and straightforward about targeting and attacking civilian infrastructure like this?

3:16There's nothing unusual about parties to arm conflict violating the rules. But one of the things that's well settled in international law is that a violation by one side does not justify a violation on the other side. The moral reason why the U.S. should not follow Iran's lead is simply, do we want to determine our moral standing according to the standards of those that routinely violate international law? I want to play another clip of a White House official for you. This is something that top advisor Stephen Miller said to CNN earlier this year. It's a comment I have thought a lot about in a lot of contexts.

4:01Here, he was talking about the U.S. military seizing Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro. You can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else. But we live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. I believe Miller was also talking about, you know, Greenland and whether the U.S. was going to move to seize Greenland in that interview. But the broader point he was making was the United States is the most powerful country in the world. And if it wants to do something, nobody can stop it. What do you make of that?

4:39Well, you know, at one point, Germany was the most powerful country in the world. And as a result of Germany's aggressive conduct, there was a war. And as a result of that war, there were war crime tribunals. And at Nuremberg, German war criminals were tried fairly. Many were found guilty. Some received long prison sentences. Others were executed. similarly for war criminals in the Far East after the Second World War. Bottom line, Stephen Miller doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't understand that the United States is merely one cog, albeit a very powerful cog, but still one cog throughout a long legal history that states have worked hard and for many years to establish, to prevent and to punish war crimes.

5:37The United States cannot make them go away. I think it is, first of all, false, and second of all, very dangerous for Americans' own interests to claim that the only thing that holds us back is the limits of our own power. The world doesn't work that way. President Trump said something similar around that time talking to the New York Times. He said he was only restrained by his own morals when it came to what he felt he could or couldn't do. Given that, and I do want to make sure we've got you in full context, given what you said before, I'm curious, do you worry the United States is veering toward the direction of, you know, as you put it, World War II Germany in terms of some of the decisions that the president and top officials are making?

6:19Well, yes and no. I think if the administration were to have its own way, then that's exactly where we would be headed. But the world is a very different place now than it was in 1939. It's true that after the Second World War, the UN Security Council was designated to be the ultimate arbiter in matters of peace and security. And it has done a fair job in that respect in many contexts. There's been so much in the realm of law and accountability that has been established in response to the Second World War. The world is a very different place now than it was when Nazi Germany had its way. Let me bring this back to the specific instance that we started this conversation with.

7:08If the United States goes forward and bombs critical energy infrastructure, bombs desalination plants, the types of infrastructure that civilians need to live in a region like the Middle East, what do you think would happen next? What would you want to see happen next? The U.S. War Crimes Act has no statute of limitation for crimes that result in death. Now, obviously, there's not going to be any accountability during this administration, but there could very well be accountability even under U.S. law in the next administration or sometime in the future. Aside from that, there are countries that are lining up right now, Spain and Italy, for example, just in the last couple of days, have said they refuse to allow U.S.

7:58flyovers in connection with the Iran conflict. This is international law in action. These states are in compliance with their obligations under the Geneva Conventions. What I think will happen if the U.S. goes ahead with a very deliberate series of war crimes is that you will see other states finally lining up explicitly to draw that line in the sand and say, you know, we will not tolerate this. We will not cooperate with this. And that, I think, will also eventually mean that those countries could commence prosecutions for violations of the laws of armed conflict against Americans. That's Gabor Rona, director of the Law and Armed Conflict Project at Cardozo Law School.

8:44Thank you so much for talking to us. My pleasure. And he spoke to Scott Tetreault. We reached out to the White House about Rona's comments, specifically about attacking civilian infrastructure being a war crime and comparing the Trump administration to Nazi Germany. In a statement, the White House pointed to Iran, saying the country had committed, quote, egregious human rights abuses for 47 years. And that President Trump's military campaign is, quote, making the entire region safer and more stable.

9:15That's the State of the World from NPR. Thanks for listening.

9:50Do you ever wish you could predict the future? Well, some scientists try to do that every year, forecasting when cherry blossom trees will bloom each spring. It's a wild guess, but there is some science about it. And there is a lot riding on the peak bloom forecast. Tourism, climate change models, and more. Listen to Shortwave on the NPR app, or wherever you get your podcasts to hear how scientists are predicting the future. Thank you.