What international law says about Trump's threats to bomb Iran's bridges and power plants

[0:00] AMNA NAWAZ For perspective now on President Trump's talk about bombing all of Iran's bridges [0:05] and power plants and whether that's legal under international law, we turn to retired [0:10] Lieutenant Colonel Rachel Van Landingham. She spent 20 years in the Air Force and is [0:14] now a professor at Southwestern Law School. Welcome back to the show. [0:18] You heard in our reporting there the repeated threats by President Trump to bomb Iranian [0:22] infrastructure. He said specifically there's a plan to decimate every bridge in Iran, [0:27] to destroy every power plant. You've heard the concerns, Colonel, [0:31] about this potentially being a war crime. Based on your expertise, is it? [0:38] He's both threatening a war crime and he's engaging in a war crime through that rhetoric [0:42] itself. And I'll explain that. First of all, the law of war, that's not just international law. [0:48] It's U.S. law. And our military members are deeply trained and steeped in this law. [0:53] The law of war prohibits measures of intimidation against a civilian population, [0:59] including... [0:59] Including threats of violence, whose primary purpose is to sow terror amongst that civilian [1:04] population. Those civilians whose electricity ensures that there's refrigeration for medicine, [1:11] for those that are dependent on refrigerated medicine, that provides electricity to hospitals [1:16] where there are life-saving operations ongoing, where babies are being born, [1:20] whose electricity is helping ensure that the water is purified and clean. [1:24] They are terrified. It's reasonably foreseeable to believe that such rhetoric will [1:29] sow terror amongst the civilian population. And therefore, one can infer that that's [1:33] what President Trump intends. So he's committing a war crime just through that language. [1:37] Second of all, he's threatening to make our military engage in war crimes and therefore [1:43] stain their honor and their soul and come back with moral injury. Why? [1:47] Because threatening to destroy every bridge and every single power plant in the entire [1:53] state of Iran is called an indiscriminate attack. That is a war crime. Why? Because [1:59] the law of war is a war crime. And that war crime is a war crime of the Lenin party. [1:59] The law of war says we don't engage in total warfare anymore. [2:03] We don't believe that children are the enemy and that civilians are the enemy. [2:07] The law of war says, look, we're going to divide the battlefield, which in modern days [2:11] is often a city like Tehran, into civilian objects and they're protected and civilian [2:15] people, they're protected. [2:17] And then there's military targets, lawful military objectives that make an effective [2:21] contribution to military action and whose destruction provides a definite military advantage. [2:28] We divide the world into those two camps. [2:30] By saying we're just going to bomb everything, bomb every single bridge, every single power [2:35] plant that serves civilians, that is a threatening, indiscriminate attack. [2:39] And it is one of the most horrible war crimes there are, because it brings us back, straight [2:43] back down the slippery slope to total warfare. [2:46] AMNA NAWAZ Well, Colonel, let me ask you, if I may, if [2:47] the military and their lawyers can argue that, yes, the power plants provide electricity [2:52] to civilians and they use these bridges, but that the regime also gets electricity from [2:56] these power plants. [2:57] That these same bridges are safe. [2:58] That these same bridges are used by members of the Iranian military forces. [3:02] Does that justify making them targets? [3:03] COLLEEN O'BRIEN You have to make an individual case-by-case [3:07] analysis of each bridge and every power plant that is being considered to be a lawful military [3:14] objective, because, first of all, just saying by its use or intended use has to make an [3:21] effective contribution to military action, not the regime in general, but to military [3:26] action. [3:27] Second. [3:28] And so a bridge. [3:29] If you look at the bridge that was destroyed last week, a bridge could make an effective [3:32] contribution to military action because it's being used as a resupply line. [3:37] Logistical lines are often a legitimate lawful military objectives in war, despite the fact [3:41] that they also have a civilian use. [3:44] Their destruction at the time has to provide a definite military advantage. [3:48] But that's not the end of the analysis. [3:50] The law of war goes even further to say, OK, once you've determined that there's some kind [3:55] of military connection here, there's a connection to military action. [3:58] COLLEEN O'BRIEN Yes. [3:59] Well, it's not a question of if it's a military advance or if it's a military destruction [4:03] or disablement will produce a military advantage. [4:05] Then you have to look at, will civilians be harmed? [4:07] And of course, by taking out power plants that are civilian in nature, civilians will [4:13] be harmed because civilian power plants provide civilians electricity to their homes, to water [4:19] purification plants, to hospitals, you name it. [4:22] This is why the United States strongly condemned Russia, and our State Department concluded [4:27] that Russia was engaged in war crimes of indiscriminate attacks. [4:29] power plants, electrical infrastructure in Ukraine during the dead of winter, [4:35] in which Ukrainians were plunged into life-threatening cold [4:39] without the definite military advantage. [4:41] So, Colonel, if I may, let me just ask you this, then. At this point in time, [4:45] we have a minute or so left. What would your advice be [4:48] to U.S. military commanders if they receive these kinds of orders? What's your message to them? [4:53] COLLEEN O' Follow your oath to the Constitution and to the law. Follow, [4:58] trust your training. Ensure that there's discreet analysis done on every single power plant that's [5:03] on a targeting list, on every single bridge, to ensure that not only it's a lawful military [5:08] objective, but that proportionality, that the harm to civilians, right, is not excessive compared to [5:13] the direct and concrete military advantage to be gained. And that means that most of these, [5:18] indeed, will not pass that test. And that's what our military professionals are trained on. [5:24] And I really hope they go back to that training and that they're taking these [5:27] threats of, you know, they're taking these threats of, you know, [5:28] war crimes given by the commander in chief and filtering them through their own training and [5:33] their own conscience and their own legal obligation to follow the law of war, because these are war [5:38] crimes if they don't follow those steps. And those war crimes do not have a statute of limitations. [5:43] And many of our... And it has universal jurisdiction. And so many of our allies [5:48] could... If you want to travel to Europe, ensure you don't get engaged in a war crime. [5:52] AMNA NAWAZ That is retired Lieutenant Colonel [5:54] Rachel Van Landingham joining us tonight. Thank you so much for your time. [5:57] RACHEL VAN LANDINGHAM Thank you. [5:57] NICK SCHIFRIN [6:11] Support journalism you trust. Support PBS News. [6:15] Donate now, or even better, start a monthly contribution today.