GENEVA — A growing international legal debate has emerged over whether proposed U.S. military strikes against Iran's civilian infrastructure—including bridges, power plants, electrical grids and other public utilities—could violate international humanitarian law and potentially expose military commanders and civilian leaders to accusations of war crimes.
The controversy intensified after reports that the Trump administration considered dramatically expanding military operations against Iran by threatening to target critical infrastructure if Tehran failed to comply with U.S. demands regarding the Strait of Hormuz. Although a ceasefire ultimately delayed any broader campaign, the discussion has drawn significant attention from legal scholars, military experts and human rights organizations who argue that the laws governing armed conflict leave little room for intentionally attacking infrastructure primarily used by civilians.
At the center of the debate is one of the oldest principles of international humanitarian law: the distinction between civilian objects and military objectives.
The Principle of Distinction
The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols require all parties engaged in armed conflict to distinguish between military targets and civilian persons or objects.
Civilian infrastructure—including schools, hospitals, electrical systems, water treatment facilities, bridges, transportation networks and power plants—is presumed to be protected from deliberate attack unless it loses that protection by making an effective and concrete contribution to military operations.
Legal scholars say that threshold is intentionally high.
Andrew Clapham, professor of international law at the Geneva Graduate Institute, told Geneva Solutions that bridges generally do not qualify as military objectives simply because they facilitate transportation.
"Fundamentally, a bridge does not contribute to warfare," Clapham argued, adding that broad attacks designed to terrorize civilian populations could themselves violate international humanitarian law.
His comments reflect a widely accepted interpretation of the law that civilian suffering cannot itself become a military objective.
The Pentagon's Dual-Use Argument
Some military planners have reportedly argued that much of Iran's infrastructure serves both civilian and military purposes, making certain facilities lawful targets.
Electricity generated by civilian power stations often supplies military bases.
Bridges may carry military convoys.
Telecommunications systems can be used by both civilians and armed forces.
Railroads, ports and highways may move civilian commerce one day and military equipment the next.
Supporters of the broader interpretation argue that modern warfare makes it increasingly difficult to separate civilian and military infrastructure.
However, many international legal experts reject using generalized military usefulness as sufficient justification.
Instead, they argue that each proposed target must undergo an individualized legal analysis.
To qualify as a military objective, the object must make an effective contribution to military action, and destroying it must offer a definite and concrete military advantage.
Simply benefiting a country's economy or indirectly supporting its government is generally considered insufficient.
Why the Legal Standard Is So Strict
International humanitarian law was deliberately written to prevent modern warfare from becoming total warfare.
During both World Wars, entire cities saw their civilian infrastructure intentionally destroyed in efforts to cripple enemy governments and industries.
Those experiences helped shape the post-war Geneva Conventions, which sought to place humanitarian limits on military operations.
Legal experts interviewed by Geneva Solutions warned that lowering the threshold for attacking civilian infrastructure could significantly erode those protections.
One international law specialist explained that many facilities indirectly support a nation's ability to wage war, but that does not automatically make them lawful targets.
Banks finance governments.
Factories manufacture civilian goods.
Roads carry civilian traffic while occasionally transporting military equipment.
Government buildings house policymakers.
If those indirect connections alone justified military attacks, nearly every part of a modern society could become a target.
That, legal scholars argue, is precisely what the Geneva Conventions were designed to prevent.
The Rules of Military Necessity
International humanitarian law rests on several interconnected principles.
Distinction requires separating civilian objects from military objectives.
Military necessity requires attacks to provide a genuine military advantage.
Proportionality prohibits attacks expected to cause excessive civilian harm relative to the anticipated military gain.
Precautions in attack require commanders to take feasible steps to minimize civilian casualties and damage.
Failure to satisfy any one of these principles may render an attack unlawful.
Military commanders must also continually reassess targets as battlefield conditions evolve.
A lawful target at one point in time may lose its military character later.
Civilian Infrastructure Already Damaged
The debate is not purely theoretical.
According to Geneva Solutions, multiple civilian locations inside Iran have already sustained significant damage during recent military operations.
Among those cited were:
A school in Minab reportedly struck during an air attack that local authorities said killed large numbers of civilians.
The Pasteur Institute in Tehran, an important medical research and public health facility.
Tofigh Daru, one of Iran's pharmaceutical manufacturers.
A bridge under construction connecting Tehran and Karaj.
Whether each individual strike complied with international law would require detailed factual investigations examining intelligence available to commanders, military necessity, targeting procedures and proportionality assessments.
International legal experts caution against making definitive conclusions about specific incidents without independent investigations.
Could Military Personnel Be Held Responsible?
One of the most significant legal questions concerns individual criminal responsibility.
Former senior U.S. military lawyers Margaret Donovan and Rachel VanLandingham have argued that service members could face extraordinarily difficult decisions if ordered to attack infrastructure lacking a legitimate military purpose.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice requires American service members to obey lawful orders.
At the same time, both U.S. military doctrine and international law recognize that soldiers have a duty not to carry out manifestly unlawful orders.
The challenge, legal experts note, is determining where that line exists.
Military personnel generally rely on intelligence assessments, legal advisers and operational commanders when evaluating the legality of targets.
However, commanders themselves may face criminal liability if they knowingly authorize unlawful attacks.
Command Responsibility
International criminal law recognizes the doctrine of command responsibility.
Under this doctrine, responsibility extends beyond the individual pilot who releases a weapon.
Military commanders who issue unlawful orders, approve illegal targeting decisions or fail to prevent violations committed by subordinates may also be held criminally liable.
Civilian leaders who direct military operations can likewise face legal scrutiny under certain circumstances.
The doctrine has been applied by international tribunals following conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and elsewhere.
While prosecution of senior political leaders remains relatively rare, the legal principle is well established within international criminal law.
Political Statements Draw Scrutiny
Legal observers also noted that public statements by political leaders can become relevant evidence when evaluating intent.
Experts interviewed by Geneva Solutions argued that rhetoric suggesting attacks are designed to increase civilian suffering or pressure a population politically could complicate future legal assessments.
International humanitarian law prohibits acts or threats of violence primarily intended to spread terror among civilian populations.
Whether any public statements meet that legal threshold would ultimately depend on the surrounding facts and any subsequent military actions.
The Continuing Debate
Military planners argue that modern conflicts increasingly blur the distinction between civilian and military infrastructure.
Cyber warfare, integrated electrical systems, dual-use communications networks and decentralized logistics have made targeting decisions more complex than during previous generations of warfare.
International law scholars acknowledge those challenges but maintain that the legal protections afforded to civilians must remain the starting point.
They argue that relaxing long-established standards would risk expanding armed conflicts beyond legitimate military objectives and expose civilian populations to significantly greater harm.
As geopolitical tensions continue in the Middle East, legal experts expect questions surrounding dual-use infrastructure, command responsibility and the lawful limits of military force to remain central issues in international humanitarian law.
Regardless of political viewpoints surrounding the conflict itself, specialists broadly agree that the legality of military operations will continue to be measured against the longstanding principles of distinction, proportionality, military necessity and civilian protection that form the foundation of the modern laws of war.
If independent investigations are conducted into future or past strikes, their conclusions will likely depend on the specific facts of each incident, including the military purpose of the target, the intelligence available to decision-makers, the precautions taken to minimize civilian harm, and whether the attacks complied with applicable international humanitarian law.
