Trump's Iran threats raise moral stakes for military members

Military officers could face a moral dilemma if President https://www.axios.com/politics-policy/donald-trump" target="_blank">Trump follows through on threats to bomb https://www.axios.com/2026/04/07/trump-threaten-iran-civilization-die" target="_blank">Iran's civilian infrastructure, military law experts tell Axios.

The big picture: Established procedures and rules of warfare dictate that civilian infrastructure is protected from an attack, and though the Joint Chiefs' chair https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4448743/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-air-force-gen-da/" target="_blank">says the U.S. military has abided by "normal procedures," Trump's rhetoric dramatically raises those stakes.

• On Tuesday, the president posted that a "whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again," a harrowing pledge after a series of https://www.axios.com/2026/04/05/trump-iran-strait-hormuz-bombing-threat" target="_blank">public warnings to destroy Iran's bridges, power plants and other https://truthsocial.com/%40realDonaldTrump/posts/116317880658472708" target="_blank">infrastructure.

What they're saying: The U.S. interpretation of obligations under the law of war in regard to "war-sustaining" dual-use infrastructure has been "pretty stretched," Rachel VanLandingham, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Air Force and former legal advisor for international law at U.S. Central Command, told Axios.

• This moment could push it to "the most extreme interpretation."
• She argues Trump's threat itself is a war crime, https://www.justsecurity.org/135797/war-crimes-rhetoric-power-plants-iran/" target="_blank">noting that it's https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF" target="_blank">impermissible to use threats of violence for the prime purpose of sowing civilian terror.
• Trump https://www.c-span.org/clip/white-house-event/user-clip-trump-asked-about-war-crimes/5198745" target="_blank">shrugged off questions Monday about the U.S. potentially committing war crimes in Iran, saying he wasn't concerned. "You know the war crime?

  The war crime is allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he told reporters.

Zoom out: So far, U.S. strikes have mainly targeted Iran's military and nuclear sites, though human rights groups have https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/03/27/iran-war-civilian-deaths/?itid=lk_inline_manual_12" target="_blank">estimated a mounting civilian war toll, including the deaths of children.

• But comments by U.S. officials have still alarmed international law experts, with more than 100 attorneys, academics, former government officials and others signing onto an April https://www.justsecurity.org/135423/professors-letter-international-law-iran-war/" target="_blank">letter expressing their "profound concern."

The other side: White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Axios in a statement that "Iran can never have a nuclear weapon, and the Iranian people welcome the sound of bombs because it means their oppressors are losing."

• She added that "[g]reater destruction can be avoided if the regime understands the seriousness of this moment and makes a deal with the United States."

Catch up quick: Brian Finucane, senior adviser at the International Crisis Group's U.S. Program and a former State Department legal adviser, says officers have already had to grapple with orders alleged by international law experts to be https://www.justsecurity.org/120296/many-ways-caribbean-strike-unlawful/" target="_blank">illegal in the Caribbean bombing campaign.

• But there's a "wrinkle" in the unlawful order debate, he says, a https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/13/us/politics/boat-strikes-doj-memo-trump.html" target="_blank">step https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/12/trump-drug-boat-venezuela-legal/" target="_blank">taken with the boat strikes: "If the Department of Justice blesses an order as lawful ... that makes it much harder for anyone to push back."
• Asked Tuesday for the Justice Department's analysis on whether the president's threats were possible war crimes, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3miwg3xbhz52d" target="_blank">said the DOJ "supports the Department of War, the White House, the Department of State."
• Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has also aligned the Department of Defense to support Trump's shift, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/22/us/politics/hegseth-firings-military-lawyers-jag.html" target="_blank">ousting top military lawyers whom he perceived as potential "https://www.foxnews.com/video/6369221764112" target="_blank">roadblocks" to enacting the president's agenda.

Reality check: VanLandingham said she doubts there would be individual criminal accountability for indiscriminate attacks, noting the difficulty and politics of war crimes prosecutions (though the https://x.com/tedlieu/status/2041549430785237291" target="_blank">rumblings have already begun).

The bottom line: Trump's threats, if actualized, would mark a significant escalation — and risk ratcheting up the legal and ethical stakes for officers.

• Finucane says, "the U.S. president should not put service members in a position where they have to decide whether to follow [the] law of war or follow his orders."

Go deeper: https://www.axios.com/2026/03/31/trump-iran-war-crimes-desalination-water" target="_blank">Trump pursues era of unshackled warfare