**
The ongoing conflict involving Iran has highlighted a worrying shift in the landscape of international warfare, as traditional rules governing military engagement appear to be collapsing. Recent threats from US President Donald Trump to target Iranian energy infrastructure, combined with reciprocal strikes from Iran on its Gulf neighbours, illustrate a departure from established norms that typically govern the initiation and escalation of conflicts.
A New Approach to Warfare
President Trump has repeatedly signalled his willingness to employ overwhelming military force against Iran, most notably threatening to “massively blow up” the South Pars gas field in response to alleged Iranian aggression towards Qatari energy interests. He has also declared intentions to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants unless Tehran reopens the crucial Strait of Hormuz. These remarks reflect a stark shift in rhetoric that raises alarm about the potential consequences for global stability.
Luis Moreno Ocampo, the founding chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), has voiced strong concerns over these developments. He argues that such military actions against civilian infrastructure contravene international law, which is designed to protect non-combatants and restrict the use of force to self-defence or actions sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. Moreno Ocampo categorically deemed the US’s threats and Iran’s retaliatory actions as acts of aggression, akin to Russia’s assaults on Ukrainian energy facilities, which have led to war crime indictments.
The Response from the West
The White House has dismissed Moreno Ocampo’s assessment as “ridiculous,” asserting that Trump is taking decisive steps to counter what it terms a “rogue terrorist regime.” In a statement to CBS News, US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz justified potential strikes on Iranian energy sites, claiming that such targets are legitimate due to Iran’s alleged use of them for nefarious purposes, including nuclear ambitions and regional aggression.
However, Moreno Ocampo contends that Iran’s attacks on its Gulf neighbours, who have not initiated hostilities, would also fall under the definition of a crime of aggression. Notably, neither the US, Israel, nor Iran are signatories to the ICC, complicating the enforcement of international law in this volatile context. The Rome Statute defines war crimes as intentionally targeting civilian objects that do not constitute military objectives, a principle that has come under scrutiny in light of recent military actions.
Regional Destabilisation
The conflict has already inflicted significant damage on energy infrastructure across a swath of countries, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, with reports indicating that at least 40 energy assets have suffered severe damage since the onset of hostilities. Rights groups warn that strikes on Iranian power plants could devastate civilian life, particularly as Iranians currently face power shortages critical for basic needs such as water supply.
The United Nations Security Council has condemned Iranian attacks against its neighbours, yet critics argue that the West’s denunciations of Iranian actions lack credibility given the US’s overt abandonment of established international norms. Brian Katulis, a former national security official, remarked that Trump’s threats signal a troubling regression in the international order, suggesting a return to “jungle diplomacy” where might makes right prevails.
The Path Ahead
As tensions continue to escalate, the options available to both Iran and the US narrow. The potential for further conflict remains high, particularly as military actions risk broadening the war and involving additional regional players. President Trump has recently hinted at delays in his aggressive posturing, claiming ongoing negotiations with Iran, though such assertions have been met with scepticism from Iranian officials.
The World Health Organisation has raised alarms regarding the conflict’s perilous state, emphasising the urgent need for restraint from all parties involved.
Why it Matters
The implications of this evolving conflict extend far beyond the immediate region, threatening to undermine the very fabric of the global rules-based order. As nations grapple with the erosion of established norms, the precedent set by these actions could embolden future aggressors and destabilise international relations. The world stands at a critical juncture—one that demands a concerted effort to reaffirm commitments to international law and protect civilian lives amidst the chaos of war.
