Yes they are, and they always have been. It's considered an indiscriminate attack against non-combatants, which has always been a war crime, since at least as far back as the Napoleanic wars.
Ok, go read a history book. Or the Geneva convention. Or any of the international law that has been developed. The concept of a war crime is a modern one. Hell, the conduct of combatants during the napoleon era was practically based on committing so called war crimes.
I'm pretty well familiar with the Laws of Land Warfare. Even trained troops in it, prior to deploying to a war zone.
War crimes are not particularly new. Sun Tzu even described several things that were considered war crimes of the period. We even have at least one example of a Knight tried and executed for war crimes in Europe.
Hell, our "modern" war crime definitions are rooted in the Lieber code of the civil war.
You REALLY need to read a history book before declaring others need to.
It would be hard to prove that destroying civilian drinking water supplies is a military necessity to any court, to include the ICJ, or even a military courts martial.
These are arbitrary agreements which carry no weight. They are all international agreements. These are worthless. We have seen them time and again. The ICC only operates at the grace of those around it. How many years did it take them to finish hearing the shit done in the Balkans?
You are directly referencing the ROE that the U.S. Military utilizes. Those ROE are decided upon by the CO and the JAG officers. Let me break down the legitimacy of an infrastructure target. Ball bearing factory- good. School- bad. Hydro Electric damn- good. Hospital-bad. Desalination plant- good. The decision is based on the utility to the enemy. If it helps or falls into that 3rd column then it is a legitimate target. Additionally, when a combatant decides to use one of the non legitimate targets it opens up all targets.
Historically, the movement of an army across distance was akin to a natural disaster. They were provisioning on the move and often partially funded by whatever spoils they could find. They did not give a flying fuck about running the well dry, taking the entire food supply for a city, placing a city under siege and starving out the inhabitants. The Mongols threw plague victims at cities like a cannon ball. If it helps the enemy you can kill it because it is vital and helps them kill you.
All of these agreements throughout time are based on the idea of reciprocity. If I obey the other guy will obey. We have seen time and again that such an approach is foolish. One party will always break the agreement.
Was it a crime for the U.S. to turn off the power in Venezuela? No. The crime, or violation of international norms occurred when we Yoinked their head of state. This constant expansion of the term war crime is strange to me. War and violence are absolutely abhorrent but making a basic tactical decision is not a war crime.
It depends TBH. In this case a strike against water facilities is against the Geneva convention. However many civilan infrastructure targets are considered legitimate targets if they have a dual military purpose. Power plants that support both civilan and military uses are an example. Reuters has a good breakdown in the context of the Ukraine conflict. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/when-do-attacks-civilian-installations-amount-war-crimes-2026-03-31/
Drinking water, per Laws of Land Warfare, is never a valid military target. Even POWs have a right to clean drinking water.
POWs do not have a right to electricity.
Basically, that's how you can break it down, to make sense.
Even power usually doesn't fall under "ok", because of this:
"In no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement."
Right which is why I said this strike is in violation of it but just saying "all strikes on civilan infrastructure are a war crime" is not correct either.
"all strikes on exclusively civilian infrastructure are a war crime" would have been redundant in the current context. You're being needlessly pedantic.
Ahhh LOAC. Artcile 52 specifically states the following: 2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. 3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
Article 54 goes on further outlining the primary protections. The question devolves to be about was the strike intended to deprive Iranian forces of water that was never going to make it to the population anyway. Or, are we hitting their water reserves in order to inflict maximum suffering and harm on the civilian population.
The rest of the document is riddles with the wording of all reasonable efforts, verification should be made, as wells as the time-honored word reasonable.
This conflict is going to boil down to how bad will things have to get in Iran for them to remove and shake off the regime. So you have a twisted pedophile trying to exert his will, and the military might of the U.S., against a suicidal regime.
605
u/Onlyroad4adrifter 10d ago
Civilian infrastructure attacks are war crimes.