Trump's War Crime Threats Aren't New -- They're a Pattern

The Threat That Worked -- Until It Didn't

President Trump's promise to obliterate Iran's "whole civilization" sent shockwaves around the world Tuesday, raising immediate fears of war crimes. The White House credited the threat with forcing a cease-fire hours later. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the incendiary language as tough negotiating that delivered "results."

But here's what the administration won't say: this wasn't a one-time tactic. It was the second threat of the week. On Easter Sunday, Trump had already promised to target Iran's civilian infrastructure -- bridges, power plants, the works -- actions explicitly forbidden under the Geneva Conventions.

And it's far from the first time Trump has made clear he doesn't think the rules of war apply to him.

A Decade of Dismissing International Law

Trump has spent years openly advocating for tactics that violate international humanitarian law. During his 2016 campaign, he endorsed waterboarding -- a simulated drowning technique widely considered torture -- and promised to bring back "a hell of a lot worse." He's called for targeting the families of terrorists. He's complained that the Geneva Conventions unfairly constrain US forces.

"We can't waterboard, but they can chop off heads," Trump said at a 2016 Wisconsin town hall. "The problem is we have the Geneva Convention, we have all sorts of rules and regulations. They have none."

The Geneva Conventions, ratified by the United States and nearly 200 other countries after World War II, explicitly prohibit targeting civilian infrastructure. They require warring parties to "distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives" and direct operations "only against military objectives."

Trump told reporters Monday that "very little is off limits" in potential US attacks on Iran. If Iran didn't agree to stop the war, "every bridge in Iran will be decimated" and "every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding, and never to be used again."

More Than Rhetoric -- A Governing Philosophy

What makes Trump different from past presidents isn't just pushing boundaries -- it's attacking the validity of the laws themselves, according to Thomas Gift, author of "Killing Machines: Trump, the Law of War, and the Future of Military Impunity."

"The US has historically positioned itself as a defender of the laws of war," said Gift, director of the Centre on US Politics at University College London. "If it openly flirts with violating them, it weakens Washington's credibility and its ability to criticize others for abuses."

Trump's choice of Pete Hegseth as Defense Secretary -- and the rebranding of the agency as the Department of War -- signals this isn't just talk. Hegseth, a decorated veteran and former Fox News host, has written extensively about his belief that rules of engagement are too restrictive.

At the White House renaming ceremony, Hegseth described the administration's strategy as "maximum lethality, not tepid legality; violent effect, not politically correct."

Last fall, Hegseth gathered top military leadership for an unusual in-person speech where he promised to free them from constraints. "We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement," he said. "We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, maximum lethality, and authority for warfighters."

The Impossible Position for Service Members

Trump's rhetoric puts military commanders and service members in an untenable spot: follow potentially illegal orders or face charges of insubordination.

"I thought it was completely inappropriate. It's reckless and irresponsible, and that undermines anyone's confidence in a president or a commander," said Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat and former Army Ranger who serves as the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Reed has been pushing the Pentagon for information about US military strikes on boats allegedly carrying drug traffickers off the Venezuela coast -- strikes some critics say should be investigated as possible war crimes.

After those strikes, six Democratic members of Congress with military or intelligence backgrounds released a video reminding service members they don't have to follow illegal orders. Trump's response? He called for the lawmakers to be arrested and tried for "seditious behavior."

Why This Matters Beyond Iran

Even if Trump never follows through on his threats, the damage is real, according to Daniel Maurer, an associate law professor at Ohio Northern University and retired Army lieutenant colonel.

"There are real practical consequences for us believing the rules don't apply to us, because if they don't apply to us, they don't apply to anybody," Maurer said. "If the absence of rules becomes the rule, then we are in danger too."

The pattern is clear: Trump views international law as an obstacle, not a safeguard. He's surrounded himself with officials who share that view. And he's willing to publicly threaten war crimes as a negotiating tactic.

The White House can call it "tough rhetoric" all it wants. The rest of the world calls it what it is: a fundamental rejection of the rules designed to limit the horrors of war -- rules the United States helped write.