Is the U.S. threatening to commit war crimes in Iran?

These days, it feels like the news changes every hour while 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.

Today on State of the World is the US threatening to commit war crimes in Iran.

You're listening to State of the World from NPR. We bring you the day's most vital

international stories up close where they're happening. It's Wednesday April 1st. I'm Greg Dixon.

This week on social media, President Trump threatened to destroy civilian infrastructure in Iran.

The threat mentioned desalination plans, a vital source of drinking water.

Also this week, authorities in Kuwait said Iran attacked one of their desalination plans.

Deliberately attacking essential civilian infrastructure is a war crime under international law.

Yet both sides have hit civilian infrastructure in this conflict. So will there be any accountability?

To answer that, we're going to hear from Gabor Rona. He directs the law on armed conflict

project at Cardozo Law School, and previously was a legal advisor to the Red Cross.

He spoke with NPR Scott Detro. 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 in the United States Armed Forces will always act within the

confines of the law, but with respect to achieving the full objectives of Operation

Upper Fury President Trump is going to move forward unabated.

That's what the press secretary says. The Pentagon has repeatedly said the United States is not

deliberately target civilians, and yet the president is talking about attacking a desalination

plan. 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 armed conflict

where the primary purpose is to spread terror among the civilian population. If you're targeting

a desalination plan, 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

in the early days of the war. It seems like the United States accidentally bombed a a girl's

school. What is the difference between something like that and deliberately attacking civilian

infrastructure like a desalination plan? So the difference between the attack on the school

and say an attack on a desalination plant 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 norms 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?

There's nothing unusual about parties to armed conflict violating the rules.

But 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

Steven Miller said to CNN earlier this year. It's a comment I have thought a lot about in a lot of

contacts here. He was talking about the U.S. 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 U.S.

was going to move to Sea's 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, as you put it,

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 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. 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 US 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 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, 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 prosecution's

for violations of the laws of armed conflict against Americans.

That's Gabo Arona, Director of the Law and Armed Conflict Project at Cardoza Law School.

Thank you so much for talking to us. My pleasure.

And he spoke to Scott Detro. We reach out to the White House about Rona's comments,

specifically about attacking civilian infrastructure, being a war crime, and comparing the Trump

administration to Nazi Germany. In a statement, the White House pointed to Iran, saying the country had

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.

That's the State of the World from NPR. Thanks for listening.