Mish Talk

Trump is tired of this war. So, are war crimes the final solution?

Truth Social

Truth Social: The United States of America is in serious discussions with A NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME to end our Military Operations in Iran. Great progress has been made but, if for any reason a deal is not shortly reached, which it probably will be, and if the Hormuz Strait is not immediately “Open for Business,” we will conclude our lovely “stay” in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet “touched.” This will be in retribution for our many soldiers, and others, that Iran has butchered and killed over the old Regime’s 47 year “Reign of Terror.” Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP

Mar 30, 2026, 5:26 AM

War Crimes Galore

One does not retaliate (should not retaliate) by blowing up civilian targets. To do so is a war crime.

Even threatening to do so is a war crime says my constitutional expert friend. But no one would hold Trump accountable.

War Crime Discussion

Mish to Grok: Please comment on the war crimes aspect of this.

Grok Response:

War-crimes analysis under international humanitarian law (IHL)IHL (primarily the Geneva Conventions, customary international law, and elements of Additional Protocol I that are widely accepted as binding) applies here because this is an active armed conflict. The core rules are distinction, proportionality, precautions in attack, and the specific ban on attacking objects indispensable to civilian survival. “War crime” status requires intent and commission (or ordering) of the prohibited act during armed conflict. A public threat alone is not automatically a war crime, but carrying it out as described would very likely cross into that territory for several reasons:

1. Desalination plants (“possibly all desalinization plants”)
   These are classic “objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population” (drinking water infrastructure). Additional Protocol I, Article 54 (widely regarded as customary law) explicitly prohibits attacking them, even if they have some dual-use value. Destroying them would foreseeably cause widespread civilian suffering (dehydration, disease, displacement) unrelated to any concrete military gain. This is one of the clearest potential war-crime triggers in the statement. Precedents: Similar attacks or threats have drawn strong condemnation and, in other conflicts (e.g., certain Russian actions in Ukraine), contributed to war-crimes investigations.
2. All electric generating plants
   Power plants are frequently dual-use (they support both civilian life and military operations). IHL allows targeting genuine military objectives, but the phrasing “completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants” is sweeping and risks being indiscriminate or disproportionate. A nationwide blackout would cripple hospitals, water treatment, food refrigeration, civilian communications, etc., producing civilian harm that is excessive relative to the military advantage of denying the Iranian regime electricity. Past U.S./coalition strikes on Iraqi power infrastructure in 1991 were heavily criticized on exactly these grounds, though never prosecuted. Modern interpretations (ICRC, UN experts, ICC practice) treat blanket power-grid attacks that foreseeably cause mass civilian hardship as unlawful unless tightly targeted and necessary.
3. Oil wells and Kharg Island (Iran’s main oil export terminal)
   This is the grayest area. Oil infrastructure can qualify as a military objective if it makes an “effective contribution to military action” (e.g., funding the war machine or supplying fuel to Iranian forces) and its destruction offers a “definite military advantage.” The U.S. has historically argued this for economic targets supporting an enemy war effort. However:
   • “Completely obliterating all of their … Oil Wells” is extraordinarily broad and would produce massive environmental damage (oil spills, fires), which IHL also restricts (Additional Protocol I, Art. 55; customary law).
   • Kharg Island is primarily an economic/export facility; its total destruction goes far beyond disabling specific military assets already struck earlier.
   • The explicit motive stated — “in retribution for our many soldiers … that Iran has butchered” over 47 years — frames the action as punitive/collective punishment, which is strictly forbidden (Geneva Convention IV, Art. 33). Retribution is not “military necessity.” Legal intent matters: if the real aim is punishment rather than disabling the enemy’s current war capability, that crosses into war-crime territory.
4. Overall context and “retribution” framing
   IHL forbids collective punishment and reprisals against civilians or civilian objects. The post’s language (“lovely ‘stay’ in Iran,” “purposefully not yet ‘touched,’” “retribution”) strongly suggests an intent to terrorize or punish the civilian population into pressuring the regime (or new “reasonable” regime) on the Strait of Hormuz. That is the textbook definition of unlawful coercion. The threat is also tied to a political/economic demand (re-open the strait for global oil traffic), not purely to ending active hostilities.

Bottom line: If the threatened strikes were executed exactly as described — blanket obliteration of all power plants, all oil wells, Kharg Island, and possibly desalination facilities, framed as retribution — they would constitute multiple serious violations of IHL and very likely war crimes under any mainstream legal analysis.

The “desalination” and “all power plants” language is especially damning; the oil/Kharg elements are more debatable but poisoned by the punitive framing.

Whether the U.S. actually carries this out remains to be seen; the post itself mixes the threat with claims of “great progress” in talks, which is classic Trump negotiating style. But from a pure IHL standpoint, the described actions would cross clear legal red lines.

Important caveats (legal realism)

• The United States is not a party to the ICC and does not accept its jurisdiction over its nationals. Domestic U.S. law (War Crimes Act) incorporates some IHL violations, but enforcement against senior leadership is politically improbable.
• U.S. military lawyers have long defended broad targeting of dual-use infrastructure under “military necessity” (see 1991 Gulf War, Kosovo 1999, etc.). They would almost certainly argue that in an active war where Iran is using oil revenue and power to sustain operations and threaten shipping, these targets qualify.
• Iran itself has committed numerous IHL violations in this conflict and prior decades (attacks on civilians, hostage-taking, use of proxies, etc.), but that does not legally license reciprocal war crimes.

Regarding War Crimes

A constitutional law expert friend, who is much more of a hawk on military interventions than others in the email conversation below, had this to say.

You know that I often disagree with [names redacted] on repeated assertions that US military actions are war crimes.  International law is complex, fact-specific and very seldom does the US clearly violate international law.  And I hate hyperbole.

But the threatened strikes would have been black and white lay-down war crimes.  The Geneva Convention forbids strikes against civilian infrastructure calculated to threaten the lives of civilians to pressure concessions.  Trump very specifically laid that out as the intent of his proposed strikes.  It’s really mind-boggling.

I disagree with @Grok on one thing. Trump is actually guilty of the crime of extortion. That’s when you try to coerce a person to give up property or services through the criminal use of force. By threatening to commit a war crime if Iran doesn’t do as he says, he is guilty of extortion.

How Would Iran Respond?

Note: The likely response below is to Trump’s March 22, 2026 post Trump to ‘Obliterate’ Iran’s Power Plants if Strait Not Open in 48 Hours

The Wall Street Journal reports Iran Threatens Reprisals on Critical Infrastructure if U.S. Strikes Power Plants

Iran’s military threatened to attack energy, information technology and desalination infrastructure in response to President Trump’s warning that the U.S. would hit Iranian power plants unless the Strait of Hormuz was opened within 48 hours. Iranian state media cited a spokesman for Iran’s military joint command as saying targets across the region could be hit.

While oil-and-gas reserves support economies around the region, desalination plants are relied upon by millions in the Middle East for drinking water. The Middle East has more than 40% of the world’s desalination capacity, or around 5,000 plants. Iran has previously targeted desalination capacity, including a drone attack that damaged a plant in Bahrain earlier this month.

Here’s what else to know:

Iran’s use of intermediate-range ballistic missiles demonstrated its arsenal can now reach Europe.

Iran said its Natanz nuclear facility was attacked for the second time in the current war.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Tehran would respond in kind to any attack on its critical infrastructure.

Gharibabadi’s post on X followed President Trump’s warning that it would strike power plants if Iran doesn’t reopen the Strait of Hormuz so critical fuel and fertilizer shipments could restart.

Gharibabadi also said the threats on infrastructure raise legal concerns under international law. “An explicit threat to target power plants and vital infrastructure goes beyond a mere political statement; under international law, it concerns civilian objects,” he wrote, citing principles of international humanitarian law, which he said prohibit deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure.

Is Iran Negotiating?

No, that is a lie. Consider Trump’s idiotic statement: “We will not negotiate. Of course they’re negotiating. Who wouldn’t negotiate,” said Trump.

To recap. The negotiations are going well despite the fact that Trump isn’t negotiating, but Iran is, and who wouldn’t, even though Trump is not sure he’s willing to make a deal.

Trump Pauses Destruction of Iran’s Energy Plant for 10 Days

On March 26, I noted Trump Pauses Destruction of Iran’s Energy Plant for 10 Days

I am pleased to offer this 10-day taco countdown calendar. Will it end with war crimes?

Tacos Courtesy of Iran

As per Iranian Government request, please let this statement serve to represent that I am pausing the period of Energy Plant destruction by 10 Days to Monday, April 6, 2026, at 8 P.M., Eastern Time. Talks are ongoing and, despite erroneous statements to the contrary by the Fake News Media, and others, they are going very well. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

The countdown ends on April 6 at 8:00 PM.

Question of the Year

Q: Is Trump willing to risk this?
A: We are going to find out. So far, it’s been a string of tacos

Iran won’t unilaterally opens the strait. It’s the only bargaining power Iran has.

Regardless, so much for Trump’s lie about “winding down operations“.

Final Thoughts

Q: Would attack on desalination plants be illegal orders?
A: Certainly. And we need that discussion now.

Q: Is this another Trump bluff?
A: Likely, but Trump is getting increasingly irrational.

I suspect crossing this line would be so severe that a number of House Republicans would vote to impeach. No need to wait for the Midterms.

There would not be sufficient votes to convict in the Senate, but the trial itself would be damning.

Q: For what?
A: To open the Strait that was already open before Trump started this insane war.