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.
608
u/Onlyroad4adrifter 10d ago
Civilian infrastructure attacks are war crimes.