Iran War: Threats to attack civilian targets are raising concerns with legal experts

Summary

---

Consider This from NPR

Episode: Iran War: Threats to Attack Civilian Targets Are Raising Concerns with Legal Experts

Date: April 2, 2026
Host: Scott Detrow
Guest: Gabor Rona, Director of the Law and Armed Conflict Project at Cardozo Law School

---

Overview

This episode delves into the legal and ethical questions raised by the United States' ongoing military campaign against Iran—specifically, President Trump's threats to target critical civilian infrastructure, such as electrical power and desalination plants. Host Scott Detrow and legal expert Gabor Rona examine the standards of international and U.S. law concerning war crimes, question the logic of retaliation, and reflect on the implications if the world's biggest superpower disregards these norms.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Recent Developments and Presidential Rhetoric

• President Trump has threatened to destroy Iranian infrastructure if no peace settlement is reached, explicitly referencing power and desalination plants (00:53–01:19).
  • Quote: "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, paraphrased by Detrow, 01:11)
• Attacks on civilian targets, including reports of a fatal strike on a Kuwaiti desalination facility, have raised alarms (01:38–01:44).

2. Legal Boundaries for Warfare

• Under both U.S. and international law, targeting civilian infrastructure is unambiguously classified as a war crime (04:30–04:58).
  • Quote: "Absolutely, Scott, both under international law and US law. You know, we have a war crimes act that prohibits prosecution precisely this kind of thing. It would also be a violation of laws against terrorism." – Gabor Rona (04:30)
• Legal standards prohibit attacks primarily intended to spread terror among the civilian population, explicitly connecting these acts to definitions of terrorism (04:30–04:58).

3. Intent vs. Accident in Civilian Harm

• Distinction is made between accidental and intentional strikes, with Rona noting that under U.S. law, both can be prosecuted as war crimes if due diligence is not observed (05:16–05:33).
  • Quote: "Under U.S. law, both intentional and mistaken attacks that aren't pursuant to due diligence can be war crimes." – Gabor Rona (05:16)

4. "Whataboutism" and Moral Standards

• Retaliatory justification does not hold legal or moral water in international law; wrongdoing by one side does not excuse violations by another (05:40–06:18).
  • Quote: "A violation by one side does not justify a violation on the other side. ... Do we want to determine our moral standing according to the standards of those that routinely violate international law?" – Gabor Rona (05:50)

5. Arguments About Power and Accountability

• White House advisor Stephen Miller previously argued that international norms are subordinate to power ("the real world ... is governed by strength, ... by force, ... by power") (06:18–07:08).
  • Rona rebuts forcefully, invoking the lessons of WWII, Nuremberg, and the ongoing reality of international law (07:08–08:24):
    • Quote: "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 ... states have worked hard ... to prevent and to punish war crimes. The United States cannot make them go away." – Gabor Rona (07:08–08:24)

6. Are We at Risk of Repeating History?

• Asked if the U.S. is veering toward the aggressive posture of WWII Germany, Rona draws distinctions and emphasizes postwar institutions and norms that now provide guardrails (08:48–09:33).
  • Quote: "The world is a very different place now than it was when Nazi Germany had its way." – Gabor Rona (09:20)

7. Potential Accountability and International Response

• Even if accountability is unlikely during this administration, Rona points out that U.S. law has no statute of limitations for war crimes resulting in death (09:54–10:30).
  • Other countries, like Spain and Italy, are actively refusing U.S. flyovers in response to concerns about legality (10:30–10:54).
    • Quote: "You will see other states finally lining up explicitly to draw that line in the sand and say, we will not tolerate this. ... Those countries could commence prosecutions for violations of the laws of armed conflict against Americans." – Gabor Rona (10:54–11:09)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Legality and Terrorism – “If you're targeting a desalination plant, then that would be an act of terrorism.” – Gabor Rona (04:30)
• On Responsibility – “The moral reason why the US 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?” – Gabor Rona (05:50)
• On Power vs. Law – “The United States cannot make [war crimes] go away. ... It is false, and very dangerous for Americans’ own interests, to claim that the only thing that holds us back is the limits of our own power.” – Gabor Rona (07:46)
• On International Backlash – “States are in compliance with their obligations under the Geneva Conventions. ... Those countries could commence prosecutions for violations of the laws of armed conflict against Americans.” – Gabor Rona (10:54–11:09)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Opening context, Presidential threats: 00:30–01:31
• Desalination plant attack and international law explained: 01:44–04:58
• Distinguishing accident vs. intent in attacks: 04:58–05:33
• Delegitimizing “retaliation” logic: 05:40–06:18
• “Might makes right” challenged: 06:18–08:24
• Postwar institutions as safeguards: 08:48–09:33
• Possibility of future accountability and international legal reactions: 09:54–11:09

---

Episode Takeaways

• International and U.S. law are clear—attacks on civilian infrastructure, even in war, are grave crimes.
• Current U.S. rhetoric and threats risk eroding crucial legal norms and could trigger significant blowback, both diplomatic and legal, from other nations.
• Historical lessons matter—accountability may occur after the fact, and global systems built post-WWII provide checks on “might makes right.”
• Allies are already responding by withholding cooperation, setting up the potential for broader consequences if norms are violated.

---

For listeners seeking clarity on the legal and moral stakes in the current Iran conflict, this episode offers expert insights, sharp historical perspective, and a clear-eyed warning about the risks of abandoning established laws of war.

Transcript

[Scott Detrow]

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 springsurvey 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. Onto today's episode as we speak this evening.

[Gabor Rona]

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.

[Scott Detrow]

President Trump addressed the country from the White House last night. It was his first formal address about the war since the US And Israel began striking Iran more than a month ago.

[Gabor Rona]

Never in the history of warfare has an enemy suffered such clear and devastating large scale losses in a matter of weeks.

[Scott Detrow]

The president said talks are still ongoing, but also said that if no deal came through, the consequences would be violent, that US Forces would target key infrastructure.

[Gabor Rona]

If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously.

[Scott Detrow]

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.

[Gabor Rona]

Moments ago, President Trump giving an update on negotiations with Iran, threatening destruction if

[Commercial Announcer]

a deal is not made.

[Gabor Rona]

Kuwait says one Indian national has been killed in an attack on a power and water desalination plant.

[Scott Detrow]

Iran, which has been suffering severe water shortages, has accused the US of striking oil 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. This message comes from Bombas. Your feet hit the ground an average of 2,000 times in a mile. Bombas sports socks are designed to support you every step. Sprint to bombas.com NPR and use code NPR for 20% off your first purchase.

[Commercial Announcer]

This message comes from Angie Tackling a Home Project. Angie can connect you with pros who do such a good job you might ask them to be your kid's godfather. Don't do that. Just trust them to get the job done. Find a pro for your [e-mail] that's a n g I.com these days it

[Scott Detrow]

feels like the news changes every hour. Well, NPR has a podcast that does that too. NPR News now brings you a fresh five minute episode every hour of the day with the latest, most important headlines in episodes that are clear, fact based and easy to digest. Listen to NPR News now on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. 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. This week, Kuwaiti authorities said Iran had attacked one of their desalination plants. 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.

[Gabor Rona]

Thank you.

[Scott Detrow]

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?

[Gabor Rona]

Absolutely, Scott, both under international law and US Law. You know, we have a war crimes act that prohibits prosecution precisely this kind of thing. It would also be a violation of laws against terrorism. It's prohibited to engage in attacks in armed 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.

[Scott Detrow]

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 girls school. What is the difference between something like that and deliberately attacking civilian infrastructure like a desalination plant?

[Gabor Rona]

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.

[Scott Detrow]

So US Law is clear cut on this. International law norm seems to be clear cut on this is that a fair way to understand this?

[Gabor Rona]

I think that's right.

[Scott Detrow]

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?

[Gabor Rona]

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 US 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?

[Scott Detrow]

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 US Military seizing Venezuelan President Nicolas 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 Greenland and whether the US 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?

[Gabor Rona]

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.

[Scott Detrow]

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 it, World War II Germany, in terms of some of the decisions that the president and top officials are making?

[Gabor Rona]

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 1939. 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.

[Scott Detrow]

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?

[Gabor Rona]

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 US 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, have said they refuse to allow US 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 US 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, we. 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.

[Scott Detrow]

That was Gabor Rona. He is 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 warned war crime and German war criminals after World War II. In 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 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 Ketchum. Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun. 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 SpringSurvey 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 springsurvey the link is in our episode notes. Thank you so much. It's Consider this from npr. I'm Scott Detrow.

[Commercial Announcer]

This message comes from Angie. If you're tackling a home project, check out angie.com from roofing to remodels and everything in between, Angie connects you with skilled pros who do such a good job, you might trust them to do other things, like pull out your tooth or be your kid's godfather. Don't actually ask them to do those things, just let them get the job done. Well, Angie, the one you trust to find the ones you trust, find a pro for your [e-mail]. that's angi.com.