Is Operation Epic Fury Illegal? Legal Experts Warn Donald Trump Could Face War Crime Violations

Donald Trump is facing renewed scrutiny over his conduct in the Iran conflict after threatening in recent days to hit bridges, power plants and other civilian sites, with international law scholars warning that both the rhetoric and any such attack could breach the laws of war. The concern centres on statements made by the U.S. president as the fight between the United States and Iran has intensified, and on whether those threats stray beyond military pressure into conduct prohibited under international humanitarian law.

The latest alarm was sharpened last week when more than 100 international law experts published a joint letter through Just Security expressing what they called 'profound concern' about serious violations of international law in the Iran war. The signatories pointed to four broad areas that they believe deserve urgent scrutiny, including the decision to enter the conflict, possible breaches of humanitarian law, inflammatory rhetoric from senior officials and the erosion of internal safeguards that are supposed to restrain unlawful force.

Donald Trump Threats Put Civilian Targets at the Centre

The sharpest criticism has focused on Donald Trump's own language. Time reported that Trump threatened to bomb civilian infrastructure if Iran did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and later wrote on Truth Social that 'a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.'

He had also spoken of bringing Iran 'back to the stone ages,' language that legal experts interviewed by the magazine said was not simply provocative, but potentially relevant to the legal analysis itself.

This matters because the law of armed conflict does not only govern what is done on the battlefield. It can also speak to threats directed at civilians, particularly when those threats are framed around destruction untethered from a specific military objective.

One legal expert quoted by Time said the threat to destroy civilian infrastructure and even 'a whole civilization' plainly cut against the principle that parties to a conflict must distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects.

The argument here is not that every power facility is automatically immune. Some infrastructure can become a lawful target if it has a genuine military use, but legal experts told Time that any such claim would still require a careful proportionality assessment, weighing anticipated civilian harm against concrete military advantage.

Their objection to Trump's public posture was more basic than that. They said the targets described by the president appeared to be framed as pressure points against society at large, not clearly defined military objectives.

Donald Trump Faces Growing Legal Alarm Beyond the Battlefield

That concern is echoed in the open letter published by Just Security, which says the conduct of senior U.S. officials has raised grave questions not only about specific strikes but about the administration's apparent attitude towards the rules themselves. The material supplied for this article also cites reported remarks from senior officials dismissing rules of engagement as 'stupid' while praising 'lethality' over legality, a posture scholars argue could increase civilian harm and corrode norms the United States has long claimed to uphold.

Rebecca Crootof, a University of Richmond law professor and one of the signatories cited in the source material, went further in remarks reported by 13News Now, saying Trump's statement that Iran's 'whole civilization will die tonight' sounded like a threat of genocide. This specific interview was referenced in the supplied material but was not independently retrieved in the reviewed sources, so readers should treat that quotation with appropriate caution.

Trump, for his part, has shown little sign of retreat on the legal question. Asked on Monday whether bombing Iran's civilian infrastructure would amount to a war crime, he said he was 'not at all' worried about it, according to Time.

Later, on Tuesday evening, he said he would suspend the threatened bombing for two weeks, but tied that pause to Iran agreeing to the 'COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz.'

The United Nations has taken a far more guarded line. Stephane Dujarric, speaking for the Secretary General, said civilian infrastructure, including energy infrastructure, may not be attacked, and warned that even where a civilian site might qualify as a military objective, international humanitarian law still bars strikes expected to cause excessive incidental civilian harm.

This is the point legal scholars keep returning to. Not every ugly threat becomes a proven war crime, and intent still has to be established case by case, but the language coming out of Washington has plainly moved this beyond ordinary wartime bluster and into territory that lawyers are now treating as evidence.

Originally published on IBTimes UK

Tags

Donald Trump, War crimes