Consider This from NPR - Iran War: Threats to attack civilian targets are raising concerns with legal experts

Episode Date: April 2, 2026

Attacking civilian infrastructure is a war crime under international law. So when President Trump threatened to attack power plants and potentially all desalination plants in Iran earlier this week, it raised concerns among some legal experts. Kuwaiti officials also accused Iran of destroying one of its desalination plants earlier this week.  If a war crime were to be committed during the conflict with Iran, what would accountability look like? Would there be any at all? For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.  Email us at [e-mail] episode was produced by Henry Larson and Jeffrey Pierre, with audio engineering by Peter Ellena.It was edited by John Ketchum.Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.To manage podcast ad preferences, review the links below:See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Hey, it's Scott. Before we get to today's episode, we wanted to ask you to do us a favor. We want to know what you think about consider this. What interests you, what you like, what you don't like, what keeps you listening. That is why we are hoping you will take a couple minutes to fill out the NPR News podcast listener survey. You can find it at npr.org slash spring survey. And don't be shy. We want to hear from everybody, even our new listeners, and those who might not have taken one of our surveys before. Thank you so much. We appreciate it on to today's episode. As we speak this evening, it's been just one month since the United States military began operation, epic fury, targeting the world's number one state sponsor of terror, Iran. President Trump addressed the country from the White House last night. It was his first formal address about the war since the U.S. and Israel began striking Iran more than a month ago. Never in the history of warfare has an enemy suffered such clear and devastating large-scale law.

in a matter of weeks. The president said talks are still ongoing, but also said that if no deal came through, the consequences would be violent, that U.S. forces would target key infrastructure. If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously. Trump has made other threats like this previously. In a recent social media post, the president threatened to destroy power plants and possibly all of Iran's desalination plants.

both of which are vital pieces of civilian infrastructure. Moments ago, President Trump giving an update on negotiations with Iran, threatening destruction if a deal is not made. Kuwait says one Indian national has been killed in an attack on a power and water desalination plant. Iran, which has been suffering severe water shortages, has accused the U.S. of striking one of its desalination plans. Consider this. Striking civilian targets has long been off limits under international law.

What does accountability look like? if those actions come from the world's biggest superpowers. From NPR, I'm Scott Detrow. It's Consider This from NPR. President Trump has repeatedly threatened to destroy civilian infrastructure across Iran if the country doesn't come to the negotiating table, including the country's desalination plans, vital for drinking water in the arid Gulf.

And this week, Kuwaiti authorities said Iran had attacked one of their desalination plans. Deliberately attacking civilian infrastructure is a war crime under international law. So how can allegations of war crimes fly by without accountability? Gabor Rona is going to tackle this big question with us. He directs the Law and Armed Conflict Project at Cardozo Law School and previously was a legal advisor to the Red Cross. Welcome to the show. Thank you. 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, and 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. You know, we have a war crimes act that prohibits precisely this kind of thing. It would also be a violation of laws against terrorism. It's prohibited to engage in attacks in-arm 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? So the difference 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? 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. Here, he was talking about the U.S. military seizing Venezuelan president Nicholas 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? Well, 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, the 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 at World War II Germany

in terms of some of the decisions that the president and top officials are making? Well, 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 19, 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. If 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. flyovers 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 was Gabor Rona. He's the director of the Law and Armed Conflict Project at Cardozo Law School. We reached out to the White House about Rona's comments, specifically about attacks on civilian infrastructure being a war crime and German war criminals after World War II. On a statement, the White House pointed to Iran saying, the country has 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. This episode was produced by Henry Larson and Jeffrey Pierre with audio engineering by Peter Helena. It was edited by John Kacham. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigant. And before we go, just one more reminder to take a couple of minutes to fill out the NPR News podcast listener survey. You can find it at npr.org slash spring survey. It's a short list of questions. It's anonymous, and it would really help us to hear from you, even if you've done one of these in the past. That's npr.org slash spring survey. The link is in our episode notes. Thank you so much.

It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Scott Detrow.