Mike Waltz, the United States ambassador to the United Nations under President Donald Trump, has reiterated that targeting Iran’s civilian infrastructure — including bridges and power plants — would not constitute a war crime under international law. His comments, made during a televised interview, have reignited debate over the legal boundaries of military action in conflicts involving state actors and the protections afforded to civilian populations under the Geneva Conventions and additional protocols.
The remarks come amid heightened tensions between the United States and Iran, particularly following a series of escalatory actions in the Persian Gulf and renewed diplomatic pressure over Iran’s nuclear program. Waltz’s position aligns with a broader framework advanced by certain elements within the Trump administration that sought to expand the definition of legitimate military targets in asymmetric conflicts, arguing that dual-use infrastructure critical to an adversary’s war effort may be lawfully struck even if it serves civilian functions.
International humanitarian law, however, maintains a clear distinction between military objectives and civilian objects. Under Article 52 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which the United States has not ratified but observes as customary international law, attacks must be strictly limited to military objectives. Civilian infrastructure such as power grids, water treatment facilities, and bridges used primarily for civilian transport are presumed to be civilian objects unless they make an effective contribution to military action and their destruction offers a definite military advantage.
Waltz defended the stance by asserting that in a total war scenario, particularly against a state like Iran that integrates military and civilian infrastructure, such distinctions become blurred. “If every bridge and power plant in Iran is being used to move missiles, fuel troops, or sustain the war effort, then they are legitimate targets,” he said, according to a transcript of his appearance on a major news network. He did not specify which bridges or facilities he was referring to, nor did he provide evidence that all such infrastructure in Iran currently meets the threshold for military use under international legal standards.
Legal experts have challenged this interpretation. Jens David Ohlin, professor of international law at Cornell Law School, stated that “the mere potential for dual use does not automatically convert a civilian object into a military target. The law requires a concrete assessment of use at the time of attack, not speculative or categorical assumptions.” He emphasized that indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure, even if argued to serve a strategic purpose, may violate the principles of distinction and proportionality, which are cornerstones of the laws of war.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has repeatedly warned that attacks on essential civilian infrastructure can amount to collective punishment and may constitute war crimes if they cause excessive harm to civilians relative to the anticipated military advantage. In past conflicts, including those in the Balkans and the Middle East, international tribunals have scrutinized strikes on power plants and dams, particularly when they led to widespread civilian suffering without clear evidence of immediate military necessity.
During the Trump administration, Waltz — then a congressman from Florida — was known for advocating a hardline stance on Iran, including support for withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and designating Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization. His appointment as U.N. Ambassador in 2025 marked a continuation of that policy line, though his role at the United Nations is largely diplomatic and does not grant him authority to set military rules of engagement.
The U.S. Department of Defense has not endorsed Waltz’s public commentary as official policy. Pentagon officials typically refrain from commenting on hypothetical targeting scenarios, emphasizing that all military operations must comply with the Law of War Manual and presidential directives. In a 2023 update to the manual, the DoD reaffirmed that “objects dedicated to civilian use, such as homes, schools, hospitals, and places of worship, are civilian objects and shall not be the object of attack,” while acknowledging that dual-use facilities may become lawful targets if they meet specific criteria.
Iran’s foreign ministry has condemned Waltz’s remarks as provocative and dangerous, warning that such rhetoric increases the risk of miscalculation and could undermine efforts to de-escalate regional tensions. Tehran has consistently maintained that its infrastructure, including power generation and transportation networks, serves primarily civilian purposes and that any attack on such facilities would be a violation of international law and a crime against humanity.
Analysts at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) note that while Iran’s military does rely on certain civilian infrastructure for logistics and command functions, the scale of targeting suggested by Waltz — “every bridge and power plant” — would likely result in catastrophic humanitarian consequences, including loss of access to clean water, medical care, and food distribution for millions of civilians.
The United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. Any unilateral military campaign targeting Iran’s infrastructure would require legal justification under Article 51 of the Charter, which permits self-defense against an armed attack. As of now, no such armed attack by Iran on the United States or its allies has been internationally verified that would trigger this provision.
Congressional oversight of military actions remains a key check on executive power. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. Forces into hostilities, though its enforcement has been inconsistent. In recent years, several bipartisan efforts have sought to reassert congressional authority over war-making, particularly in response to concerns about expansive interpretations of presidential power in national security matters.
For readers seeking to understand the legal framework governing armed conflict, the International Committee of the Red Cross provides accessible resources on the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution in attack. The United Nations Office of Legal Affairs also maintains publications on the application of international humanitarian law in contemporary conflicts.
As diplomatic channels between Washington and Tehran remain strained, the debate over what constitutes a lawful target in potential hostilities continues to divide policymakers, legal scholars, and military planners. Whether future administrations will adopt or reject the expansive view of targeting advocated by figures like Waltz remains uncertain, but the implications for civilian protection in warfare are profound.
Stay informed on developments in U.S. Foreign policy and international law by following official updates from the U.S. Department of State and the United Nations Security Council. Share your thoughts on this critical issue in the comments below, and help foster a global conversation about the ethics of war and the protection of civilians.