Donald Trump has once again floated the idea of striking Iran's bridges and power plants as part of a potential military campaign. The concern is real and serious: such attacks would devastate ordinary Iranians: hospitals losing power, water systems failing, families plunged into darkness and disease in the aftermath. Is this legitimate warfare or a war crime? The honest answer lies somewhere between cold military logic and strict international humanitarian law (IHL), with history showing both sides have precedents.
The Core Principles of the Laws of WarInternational humanitarian law, primarily from the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I, rests on two key rules relevant here:
1.Distinction: Parties must distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects. You cannot intentionally target purely civilian infrastructure.
2.Proportionality: Even if something has military value, the expected civilian harm must not be excessive compared to the concrete military advantage gained.
Power plants and bridges often fall into a dual-use gray area. A power grid supports both civilian life and military command, missile production, air defences, and nuclear facilities. Bridges move troops and supplies as well as civilians.
Under IHL, an object becomes a lawful military target if it makes an "effective contribution to military action" and its destruction offers a "definite military advantage." However, attacks causing widespread, long-term civilian suffering, blackouts shutting down hospitals, water treatment, sanitation, can violate proportionality and become unlawful.
Intentionally destroying objects "indispensable to the survival of the civilian population" (like certain power and water systems) is specifically restricted.
Real-World Precedents: Everyone Does It, But It Hurts CiviliansHistory is full of infrastructure attacks:
Gulf War (1991): The U.S.-led coalition heavily bombed Iraqi power plants and bridges. This crippled Saddam's military but caused massive civilian suffering through disease and lack of services. Critics called parts of it disproportionate.
NATO in Kosovo/Serbia (1999): Targeted electrical infrastructure. Debated legally.
Russia in Ukraine: Repeated strikes on power grids caused blackouts, hospital failures, and winter misery. Widely condemned as disproportionate and terror-like by Western governments and the UN.
Israel in conflicts: Has hit dual-use infrastructure in Gaza/Lebanon, with similar debates over civilian costs.
In every case, the attacking side argues "military necessity." Opponents call it collective punishment. The truth is that modern wars fought inside societies inevitably blur lines. Pure "clean" wars against only military targets are rare when the enemy embeds capabilities in civilian areas.
The Iran ContextIran's regime pursues nuclear weapons, supports proxies attacking others, and threatens regional stability. A strike campaign against its nuclear program could reasonably include degrading supporting infrastructure: power for enrichment facilities, bridges for logistics, etc.
However, broad threats to "knock out" power plants risk crossing into illegality if they foreseeably cause disproportionate harm to civilians who have no real say in the regime's decisions. Hospitals without power mean dead patients. No clean water means cholera outbreaks. These are predictable second- and third-order effects documented in every modern conflict.
Many legal experts view blanket targeting of Iranian civilian power infrastructure as risky or unlawful under current IHL interpretations.
As pure military strategy, degrading an enemy's power and transport makes sense. It reduces their ability to sustain war, forces resource diversion to repairs, and signals seriousness. Weak regimes sometimes fold under systemic pressure. Starving the war machine can save lives long-term by shortening the conflict.
As ethics and law, it's troubling. Punishing millions of civilians for the sins of a theocratic dictatorship veers toward collective punishment, which is morally dubious even if not always technically illegal. Ordinary Iranians, many of whom dislike the regime, suffer most. Hospitals and babies don't build centrifuges. Innocent people will die.
Trump's approach reflects a realist "peace through strength" view: deter Iran harshly before it gets nukes, because a nuclear Iran would be far worse. Critics see recklessness that could radicalise more people, destabilise the region further, and erode America's moral standing.
Targeting dual-use infrastructure like certain bridges and power facilities can be lawful if tightly tied to military objectives, precise, and proportional. Blanket destruction that foreseeably collapses civilian life support systems risks crossing into war crimes territory, not because war is gentle, but because IHL draws lines precisely to prevent total societal collapse.
War is hell, and pretending otherwise is naive. But deliberately making it hell for the powerless to pressure the powerful has limits if we claim to uphold civilised standards. Better options include precision strikes on nuclear/military sites, cyber operations, sanctions, and supporting internal opposition.
The real test isn't slogans about toughness or cruelty. It's whether the action materially advances security without unnecessary barbarity. In Iran's case, the regime's choices have brought this pressure. But the Iranian people are not the regime. Any campaign must keep that distinction sharp, in both rhetoric and targeting.