Trump Says He’s “Not At All” Worried About War Crimes, Threatens Iran Infrastructure

U.S. President Donald Trump has doubled down on threats to destroy Iranian infrastructure if Tehran does not comply with a U.S.-imposed deadline to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, brushing aside concerns that such actions could amount to war crimes under international law. Officials say he is “not at all” worried about legal implications as tensions with Iran escalate.

At a White House briefing, Trump reiterated that if Iran failed to meet the deadline, the U.S. would target bridges, power plants, and other key infrastructure — claiming it would “take hours” for U.S. forces to carry out such strikes. When pressed about the potential for civilian harm or violations of international humanitarian law, he declined to rule out attacks on non‑military targets.

Experts on international law say deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure — particularly without clear military necessity and proportionality — risks violating established norms and treaties governing armed conflict. Some legal scholars and United Nations officials have described such threats as potentially constituting war crimes, a characterization Trump has dismissed. Others note that whether specific infrastructure qualifies as a legitimate military objective would ultimately be adjudicated by a tribunal or court under international law.

Also Read: Chennai’s Egmore Sees New Faces: Lawyer, Entrepreneur, YouTuber, Techie

The conflict’s escalation — including recent U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian facilities — has drawn criticism from global humanitarian organizations. Leaders like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) president have called on all parties to respect the rules of war in both words and actions, warning that threats against civilian infrastructure should not become normalized.

Russia’s government has described the broader Middle East as “on fire,” highlighting growing instability as hostilities widen beyond Iran’s borders. Meanwhile, nuclear negotiations and ceasefire efforts have so far failed to produce a breakthrough, and Tehran has rejected temporary truce proposals, insisting on guarantees of an end to hostilities.

Public and diplomatic responses vary widely: some U.S. allies have urged de‑escalation, calling threats against civilian sites “unhelpful,” while others have stressed the need to balance military objectives with legal limits. Iran, for its part, has reiterated its refusal to accept terms that do not guarantee national sovereignty and safety.

As the situation continues to unfold, the international community is closely watching whether rhetoric translates into action and how military and political leaders navigate the fraught intersection of strategy, law, and humanitarian concerns.

Also Read: Air India CEO Campbell Wilson Resigns Amid Airline Transformation, Reports Say