Introduction
Throughout the history of international relations, the political and military rhetoric employed by states during periods of crisis and armed conflict has consistently played an important role in shaping the course of events, defining wartime objectives, and influencing public opinion. Statements by political and military officials—particularly those representing major powers—do not always remain confined to the realm of political messaging; they may also reflect a state’s broader approach to the limits of the use of power, its strategic objectives, and the manner in which it intends to confront an adversary. In situations of armed conflict, threatening rhetoric assumes even greater significance when it extends beyond conventional military objectives and is directed at a country’s political structures, civilian population, or critical infrastructure. Beyond their political and security implications, such statements raise important questions under international law, particularly with regard to the limitations governing the use of force, the principle of distinction between military and civilian objectives, the protection of civilians, and the prohibition against using human suffering as a means of coercion.
In recent decades, the experience of various wars has demonstrated that threatening or employing military force on a large scale against a country’s vital capacities has not necessarily resulted in the achievement of the intended political objectives. In many cases, it has instead produced far-reaching humanitarian, economic, and regional consequences. Examining the statements of government officials and influential political figures therefore forms part of a broader analysis of the relationship between power, war, international responsibility, and the protection of fundamental human rights values. Within this framework, the threats made against Iran during the recent conflict warrant close legal and political scrutiny, particularly in light of the nature of some of the declared targets, including critical infrastructure and civilian structures.
Incidents
Since the outbreak of the war and the attacks on Iran by the United States and Israel, U.S. officials have consistently employed threatening rhetoric against Iran, Iranian officials, and the Iranian state. This pattern continued throughout different phases of the war and persisted even during the ceasefire and following the signing of an understanding intended to end the two-month conflict between the parties. Such statements have been disseminated through social media, press conferences, and individual interviews and, on numerous occasions, have gone beyond military targets to encompass political and civilian objectives. These have included direct threats by the President of the United States to destroy Iranian civilization or to eliminate Iran’s civilian infrastructure—threats he has voiced repeatedly.
- Donald Trump
Since beginning his second presidential term in the White House, U.S. President Donald Trump has maintained a threatening tone toward Iran. With the outbreak of the war, however, his rhetoric became considerably more serious and menacing and, in some instances, openly insulting. Among other statements, he threatened the destruction of Iranian civilization and asserted that he could destroy all of Iran’s vital facilities within a short period of time. Beginning in early May 2026—the period relevant to this report—he repeatedly combined threats against Iran with assertions that an agreement with Tehran was close. Analysts have described the latter element as an effort to manage energy markets and oil prices, while this broader approach is commonly referred to in international relations as a “carrot-and-stick” strategy.
In the latter part of May, Trump made a statement on Iran that combined an explicit threat with an attempt to instill optimism in global oil markets. He stated that the United States would not proceed with the planned attack on Iran the following day, while at the same time saying that he had ordered U.S. forces to remain prepared to launch a full-scale and extensive assault at a moment’s notice if an acceptable agreement could not be reached[1].
In late May, while attempting to place the prospect of an agreement at the center of media attention, he stated:
“There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist[2]!”
In early June, only one day before the start of the FIFA World Cup, he once again threatened Iran, stating that Tehran had spent too long negotiating an agreement that would have been highly favorable to it and would now “have to pay the price.” In a subsequent interview with Fox News, he said that if Tehran remained unwilling to sign an agreement, he was nearing a decision to order new strikes against Iranian power plants and bridges[3].
At the NATO Summit, Trump once again repeated his threats—made several times before—to attack Iran’s vital and energy infrastructure, including electric power plants and desalination facilities, as well as to seize Kharg Island, the principal hub of Iran’s oil exports[4].
In mid-July, as tensions in the Strait of Hormuz once again intensified, Donald Trump, speaking in an interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show, stated that Iran would be hit very hard that night and again the following day, and that there was nothing it could do about it. He later told reporters at the White House that the United States was striking Iranian facilities in the Strait of Hormuz[5].
One day later, in an interview with Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst, Trump said:
“I’ll save the energy targets for last, but ultimately we’ll hit energy targets.”
He further stated:
“Next week comes the power plants, next week comes the bridges,”
unless Iran returned to the negotiating table[6].
Subsequently, on 22 July 2026, Trump explicitly linked military objectives to civilian infrastructure in a post on Truth Social, declaring that whenever the Islamic Republic of Iran fired on a vessel in the Strait of Hormuz—whether using a missile, rocket, drone, or any other device or weapon—the United States would bomb and destroy a bridge or power plant, including facilities located in or near the capital, Tehran[7].
In one of his most recent statements as of the preparation of this report, on 28 July 2026, Trump reiterated his threats against Iran’s critical infrastructure during an interview with Fox News’ Fox & Friends, while saying that he would prefer, if possible, to avoid targeting Iranian bridges and power plants. He stated:
“It’s a very, very delicate balance. So I think we have a very strong position right now.”
He added that the Iranians knew he would carry out the threatened action if they failed to reach an agreement and that the United States could no longer allow them to violate agreements[8].
- Pete Hegseth
Between early May and early August 2026, Pete Hegseth, the U.S. Secretary of War, used explicitly threatening military rhetoric toward Iran in a number of official statements. On 30 May 2026, speaking to reporters in Singapore, he stated that if negotiations between Washington and Tehran failed, the United States was prepared to resume military strikes against Iran and retained the resources and capabilities required to continue its operations[9].
He subsequently emphasized in official remarks that U.S. forces were prepared to conduct broader military operations against Iran, while the U.S. Department of War also announced planning for “major strikes” against the country. In mid-June, Hegseth told the press:
“CENTCOM will be busy tonight because, President Trump said we will be hitting Iran hard, and we will be [10].”
He also warned that Iran should not continue challenging the United States, and that any threat to U.S. forces and interests would be met with a military response. In another explicitly threatening statement, he said:
“If we need to negotiate with bombs, we’ll negotiate with bombs[11].”
On 21 July 2026, Pete Hegseth issued another ultimatum to Tehran in similarly threatening terms: negotiate or face the Department of War[12]. On the same date, while defending the continuation of military operations, Hegseth said that the war against Iran had already cost billions of dollars and called for additional funding to sustain U.S. military action. He urged lawmakers to approve not only the requested supplemental funding, but also the proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget for 2027[13].
- Marco Rubio
Marco Rubio, Secretary of State in the Trump administration and a longstanding advocate of a hard-line approach toward Iran, has likewise repeatedly employed diplomatic language interwoven with threats against the country. This has been clearly evident in his remarks to journalists, press conferences, and his broader public positions. Rubio has on several occasions described Iran’s governing establishment as “terrorist[14].”
In late May, before the 60-day agreement between Iran and the United States had been concluded, Rubio told reporters in New Delhi that the United States would either reach a good agreement with Iran or deal with the matter “another way[15].”
In one of his most significant statements, made in late July during an ASEAN meeting in Manila, Philippines, Rubio responded to remarks by the Iranian foreign minister characterizing Iran’s strategy as retaliatory and based on an “eye for an eye” approach. In a threatening response, Rubio stated:
“The president’s policy is a head for an eye.”
He added:
“They will pay a very heavy price for the things they’re doing.”
The statement represented a formulation even more severe than simple retaliation, explicitly characterizing the Trump administration’s approach as “a head for an eye[16].”
- Lindsey Graham
The late Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, between 1 May 2026 and his death on 11 July 2026, supported a hard-line approach toward Iran and consistently emphasized the need to maintain maximum pressure on Tehran. He repeatedly made threatening statements and issued stern warnings to Iran through news media as well as on X. In addition, he had previously thanked Trump for attacking Iran and its nuclear facilities[17].
On another occasion, Graham compared Trump to Winston Churchill and stated:
“Weaken them further, and you may get a deal later. But you’re not going to get a deal with this crowd until you hurt them more[18].”
Overall, media portrayals generally presented Graham as a hard-line and relatively hawkish figure. According to The Wall Street Journal, a documentary filmmaker who had followed him over the preceding three years found that he had persistently and obsessively pushed for U.S. involvement in a war with Iran. The newspaper also reported that Graham had planned to travel to Trump’s residence in Florida to persuade him to join Israel in bombing Hezbollah in Lebanon[19].
Before the war against Iran began, Graham had spent weeks arguing that military action against the country was not only justified but necessary, traveling back and forth between Israel and the White House to help the government of Benjamin Netanyahu advance its case for war[20].
- Mark Levin
Mark Levin does not hold an official position within the policymaking apparatus of the Donald Trump administration, particularly in the field of foreign policy. Nevertheless, as a right-wing Fox News host and a staunch opponent of Iran, he has exercised considerable influence over the Trump administration’s approach toward the country. Given his efforts to shape public opinion in favor of an attack on Iran, his role cannot be overlooked. Through television appearances, his own programs on Fox News, and posts on X, he repeatedly made threatening statements directed at Iran and its political system.
Before the outbreak of the war, Levin, appearing on Sean Hannity’s program, openly advocated military action against Iran. Concluding his remarks, he stated:
“We don’t need to put up with their crap. It’s time to put it to an end[21].”
In mid-May, Levin adopted an even more explicitly threatening tone on X, writing:
“The regime must be destroyed. The time is now[22].”
In late June 2026, Levin also delivered remarks at the international JNS summit, openly threatening Tehran and declaring:
“Regardless of who is president or prime minister, the Iranian regime must be destroyed[23].”
- Other Figures
In addition to senior officials in the U.S. administration, a number of other American political figures have also expressed support for maximum-pressure policies, broader military action, or the targeting of Iran’s strategic capabilities.
Mike Waltz, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, responded to Donald Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian power plants and bridges by declaring that:
“All options are on the table.”
He defended the legitimacy of this approach and regarded threats to target Iranian infrastructure as acceptable. Waltz rejected allegations that such attacks would violate international law, arguing that infrastructure serving both military and civilian purposes could constitute a lawful target[24].
Republican Senator Ted Cruz, likewise defending Trump’s threats against Iranian power plants, argued that attacking electrical facilities would not necessarily constitute a war crime and supported the possibility of using such measures as a means of exerting pressure on Tehran[25].
John Bolton, the former U.S. National Security Adviser, has long advocated regime change in Iran. Following the outbreak of hostilities, he stated in an interview with Geoff Bennett of PBS NewsHour that the U.S. and Israeli military action against Iran was “totally justified” and maintained that regime change was critical to “peace and stability” in the Middle East. As Bolton put it:
“If anybody wants peace and stability in the Middle East, this regime has to go[26].”
Taken together with statements by other U.S. officials, these remarks point to the existence of a discourse within segments of the American political establishment in which the extensive use of military force against another country—even when it carries potentially far-reaching consequences for civilians and critical infrastructure—is presented as an instrument of political pressure. In light of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, including the principles of distinction and proportionality and the protection of the civilian population, such an approach raises serious legal concerns.
Challenges and Responses
- International Law Considerations
Threats to destroy a political system, target the civilian population, or extensively damage critical infrastructure—including electricity networks, water facilities, energy infrastructure, and economic centers—raise complex issues under international law, both in relation to international humanitarian law governing the conduct of armed conflict and the legal framework regulating the resort to force. From the perspective of the Charter of the United Nations, threatening the use of force in order to impose political change or bring about the collapse of a country’s governmental structure may conflict with the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of States. Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations provides that:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations[27].”
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) likewise emphasized in its 1986 Judgment in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) that the principle of non-intervention safeguards the right of every State to determine freely its own political, economic, and social system without external coercion. The Court held that support for, or coercive pressure aimed at altering, a State’s political structure may violate the principle of non-intervention where it interferes with choices that fall within that State’s sovereign sphere. Accordingly, threatening the use of force for the purpose of changing a government or bringing about the collapse of a country’s political order may be regarded as inconsistent with fundamental principles governing international relations, including respect for State sovereignty and political independence[28].
At the stage of conducting hostilities, international humanitarian law, through the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack, requires a distinction to be maintained between military objectives and civilian objects. Under Article 52 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, civilian objects may be attacked only where they make an effective contribution to military action and their destruction offers a definite military advantage. Where there is doubt as to whether an object normally devoted 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 must be presumed not to be so used[29]. Electricity networks, water facilities, energy infrastructure, and public services are therefore, in principle, protected under international humanitarian law. Even where certain infrastructure serves both civilian and military purposes, any attack must still comply with the requirements of proportionality and precautions in attack; an entire energy network or a country’s economy cannot be regarded as a lawful target merely because of an indirect connection to its war-fighting capacity.
Threatening to destroy critical infrastructure for the purpose of exerting pressure on a government, undermining public morale, compelling an adversary to surrender, or imposing costs on society raises serious concerns under international humanitarian law, since the consequences of such actions generally extend far beyond the battlefield and directly affect the lives of millions of civilians. Rule 54 of Customary International Humanitarian Law provides that:
“Attacking, destroying, removing or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population is prohibited[30].”
Intentional or disproportionate attacks against critical civilian facilities may also, where the requisite legal conditions are satisfied, give rise to questions of State responsibility and potentially even individual criminal responsibility for war crimes.
Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court identifies a number of acts committed in the context of armed conflict that may constitute war crimes. One of the most significant, set out in Article 8(2)(b)(iv), concerns:
intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that it will cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment that would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated[31].
It should, however, be noted that the United States is not a State Party to the Rome Statute. Accordingly, threatening rhetoric that contemplates the widespread destruction of a country’s infrastructure or speaks of sending it “back to the Stone Age” or bringing about the “destruction of a civilization” is not merely a political instrument. It also raises fundamental questions concerning the legal limits of warfare, the protection of civilians, and the prohibition against using collective human suffering as an instrument of military pressure.
- Domestic Reactions
The Washington, D.C.-based media outlet The Hill addressed Donald Trump’s threats against Iran’s civilian infrastructure in an opinion piece. The authors argued that Trump’s threats to destroy Iranian infrastructure with the aim of sending the country “back to the Stone Age” would not only be strategically ineffective, but would also entail extensive humanitarian costs. Drawing on examples such as Vietnam, Iraq, Kosovo, and Ukraine, they argued that bombing critical infrastructure generally does not compel an adversary to surrender; instead, it can strengthen national resistance while increasing civilian suffering. In their view, infrastructure such as electricity networks, bridges, and energy facilities—even where they serve dual civilian and military functions—may constitute lawful targets only where their destruction offers a definite military advantage and the resulting civilian harm is not disproportionate. The authors warned that expanding the target list and threatening Iran’s critical infrastructure would increase the risk of violations of international humanitarian law and the commission of war crimes. Ultimately, the article stressed that intensifying attacks on infrastructure would likely deepen the crisis, increase hostility, and contribute to greater regional instability rather than bring the war to an end[32].
The California-based Courthouse News Service also reported extensively on reactions within the U.S. Congress to Donald Trump’s threats against Iran. According to the report, Trump’s statements that Iran would face destruction if negotiations failed generated serious concern and criticism among Democratic lawmakers and even some Republicans. While setting a deadline for Tehran, Trump had simultaneously threatened to target Iran’s critical infrastructure, including power plants, bridges, and energy facilities, should no agreement be reached. Several members of Congress characterized these remarks as irresponsible, dangerous, and indicative of a destabilizing escalation of the war, and called for congressional intervention to limit the President’s war powers. By contrast, some Republican lawmakers supported maintaining pressure on Iran, while emphasizing that the Iranian population and civilian infrastructure should not be the targets of such pressure[33]. The report demonstrates that threats against Iran’s critical infrastructure have raised serious legal and political concerns not only internationally, but also within the United States itself.
- International Reactions
In response to Donald Trump’s threats to target Iranian civilian infrastructure, including bridges and power plants, an Iranian military source stated that Tehran would respond reciprocally and on a broad scale if Iranian infrastructure were attacked. The official warned that if the United States struck Iranian infrastructure, critical facilities, bridges, and, in particular, energy installations across the region in which U.S. interests are present would become potential targets of an Iranian response[34]. These remarks reflect growing concern that the scope of the conflict could expand from military objectives to critical infrastructure and regional energy facilities. They further suggest that the implementation of verbal threats against Iran’s vital infrastructure could prompt an Iranian response justified on the basis of the principle of “reciprocity,” thereby inflicting unnecessary suffering not only on civilians in Iran, but across the broader region.
The news network Al Jazeera likewise published an analysis addressing Trump’s threats against Iran’s infrastructure. Referring to the U.S. President’s threats to target power plants, bridges, and other critical Iranian infrastructure, the report highlighted expert warnings about the consequences of further escalation. Analysts argued that attacks on civilian infrastructure would not bring about a swift end to the war; rather, they could broaden the scope of the crisis, trigger further Iranian retaliation, and generate even greater regional instability. The report emphasized that targeting critical infrastructure, in addition to its humanitarian consequences, could lead to retaliatory attacks against energy facilities elsewhere in the region and place further pressure on global oil and gas markets. Experts also maintained that such actions would raise serious legal concerns and would likely strengthen domestic resistance in Iran and prolong the conflict rather than force the country into submission[35].
Conclusion
An examination of statements made by U.S. officials and political figures indicates that, over the course of this conflict, part of the prevailing political discourse in the United States moved beyond threats directed at Iran’s military capabilities and toward threats against the country’s critical infrastructure, political structure, and even its civilizational existence. Irrespective of the political objectives behind such rhetoric, these statements are particularly significant from the perspective of international law because they challenge the boundary between legitimate forms of pressure within the context of armed conflict and the use of collective civilian suffering as an instrument of political compulsion. The historical experience of warfare demonstrates that attacks on critical infrastructure often produce consequences extending far beyond their initial military objectives and can inflict lasting harm on civilian life while intensifying regional instability.
From a legal perspective, threats to extensively destroy civilian infrastructure and to employ such destruction as an instrument of political pressure underscore the need for strict adherence to the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, including the principles of distinction and proportionality and the protection afforded to objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. At the same time, domestic reactions within the United States and warnings issued by a number of analysts demonstrate that this approach has also generated serious questions within the U.S. political establishment concerning its legitimacy, effectiveness, and strategic consequences.
Accordingly, the central issue is not confined merely to the legality or illegality of any particular military operation. Rather, it raises a more fundamental question concerning the limits of power in the international system: whether the destruction of a society’s vital capacities can legitimately be employed as a means of achieving political objectives, or whether such an approach ultimately serves to erode the protective rules of international law and perpetuate the cycle of violence.
References
[1] Holland, S., & Hafezi, P., & Shahid, A. (2026, May 18). Trump says he paused attack on Iran, signals a nuclear deal may be possible. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/pakistan-hands-us-revised-iranian-proposal-ending-war-2026-05-18/
[2] Bose, N., & Alaaeldin, M., & Ehab, Y. (2026, June 28). Iran and US agree to halt attacks and renew talks, US official says. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-carries-out-fresh-strikes-against-iran-after-tanker-struck-hormuz-escalating-2026-06-27/
[3] Reuters. (2026, June 10). Trump says Iran has taken too long to negotiate, will ‘pay the price’. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-says-iran-has-taken-too-long-negotiate-will-pay-price-2026-06-10/
[4] Brown, B., & Hannon, B., & Vileira, L., & Mcghee, B., & Jefferson, A., & Clark, N., & Orsi, P. (2026, July 9). US says it’s carrying out more strikes after Iran’s attacks in Strait of Hormuz. The Associated Press. From: https://apnews.com/live/trump-iran-nato-summit-updates-07-08-2026
[5] Alashray, E., & Elwelly, E., & Ramadan, T., & Jackson, K. (2026, July 13). U.S. military renews strikes on Iran while tankers come under attack in Strait of Hormuz. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-escalates-attacks-us-bases-gulf-states-warns-more-incidents-strait-2026-07-13/
[6] Alashray, E., & Elwelly, E., & Ramadan, T., & Singh, K. (2026, July 14). Trump resumes Iran port blockade and threatens strikes on energy targets. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-says-it-struck-us-air-base-jordan-us-military-ends-five-hours-attacks-2026-07-14/
[7] Reuters. (2026, July 22). Trump: US will attack Iranian bridge, power plant for every ship targeted in Hormuz. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-us-will-attack-iranian-bridge-power-plant-every-ship-targeted-hormuz-2026-07-22/
[8] Reuters. (2026, July 28). Trump cites ‘good’ talks on Iran, reiterates threat to hit targets. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-cites-good-talks-iran-reiterates-threat-hit-targets-2026-07-28/
[9] Reuters. (2026, May 30). Pentagon chief says U.S. ready to restart strikes on Iran if no deal. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/pentagon-chief-says-us-ready-restart-strikes-iran-if-no-deal-2026-05-30/
[10] Lopez, T. (2026, June 10). U.S. Plans Major Strikes on Iran, Hegseth Says. The Department of War. From: https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4514093/us-plans-major-strikes-on-iran-hegseth-says/
[11] Yerushalmy, J., & Ho, V., & Yang, M., & Ambrose, T., & Ali, T. (2026, June 11). US says second day of strikes ‘completed’ – as it happened. The Guardian. From: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jun/10/iran-war-updates-missile-strikes-trump-us-retaliation-middle-east-crisis-war-live?page=with%3Ablock-6a29c05a8f0824553e8c8efa
[12] Eco Iran. (2026, July 21). Hegseth Threatens Iran: Either Negotiate or Face an Intensified War. Eco Iran. From: https://ecoiran.com/fa/tiny/news-145183
[13] Ali, I., & Zengerle, P., & Stewart, P. (2026, July 22). War in Iran has cost the US $37.5 billion so far, Pentagon says. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-war-iran-has-cost-375-billion-so-far-pentagon-says-2026-07-21/
[14] Reuters Connect. (2026, March 9). Rubio: Iran’s clerical regime is trying to hold the world ‘hostage’. Reuters. From: https://www.reutersconnect.com/item/rubio-irans-clerical-regime-is-trying-to-hold-the-world-hostage/dGFnOnJldXRlcnMuY29tLDIwMjY6bmV3c21sX1ZBMjMxMzA5MDMyMDI2UlAx
[15] Reuters. (2026, May 25). Rubio says US will either have a good agreement with Iran or deal with it ‘another way’. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/rubio-says-us-will-either-have-good-agreement-with-iran-or-deal-with-it-another-2026-05-25/
[16] News 24. (2026, July 24). ‘Head for an eye’: Rubio levels vicious threat at Iran as war reignites. News 24. From: https://www.news24.com.au/world/global-affairs/head-for-an-eye-rubio-levels-vicious-threat-at-iran-as-war-reignites/video/27782a2619740f403987a1b5e09df342
[17] Lindsey Graham. (2025, June 24). ICYMI: Graham Floor Speech on the Israel-Iran Conflict. Lindsey Graham. From: https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=367428C3-BDCA-4FF1-A2A9-0D78529D4F82
[18] Hains, T. (2026, May 17). Lindsey Graham: We’ve “Hit A Wall On Deal-Making” With Iran, This Is Trump’s “Churchill Moment”. RealClearHoldings. From: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2026/05/17/lindsey_graham_weve_hit_a_wall_on_deal-making_with_iran_until_you_hurt_them_more.html
[19] Dawsey, J. (2026, July 26). Unreleased Documentary Footage Captures Graham’s Obsessive Push for Iran War. WSJ. From: https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/lindsey-graham-iran-war-netanyahu-call-598b1e85
[20] Salama, V. (2026, July 13). How Lindsey Graham Miscalculated on Iran. The Atlantic. From: https://www.theatlantic.com/national-security/2026/07/lindsey-graham-iran-hawk-trump/687900/
[21] Gertz, M. (2026, March 2). How Fox’s Mark Levin And Sean Hannity Promoted Case For War On Iran. The National Memo. From: https://www.nationalmemo.com/fox-news-iran-war
[22] Tehran Times. (2026, May 18). Mark Levin Escalates Anti‑Iran Rhetoric, Calls for Regime Change and U.S. Support for Opposition. Abna 24. From: https://en.abna24.com/news/1815674/Mark-Levin-Escalates-Anti-Iran-Rhetoric-Calls-for-Regime-Change
[23] The Media Line. (2026, June 22). Mark Levin: ‘Regardless of Who Is President or Prime Minister, the Iranian Regime Must Be Destroyed’. The Media Line. From: https://themedialine.org/headlines/mark-levin-regardless-of-who-is-president-or-prime-minister-the-iranian-regime-must-be-destroyed/
[24] Kerr, N. (2026, April 19). Waltz defends Trump’s threat to bomb ‘every single power plant’ in Iran. ABC News. From: https://abcnews.com/Politics/waltz-defends-trumps-threat-bomb-single-power-plant/story?id=132181508
[25] The Economic Times. (2026). ‘It’s not war crime to blow up power plants’: Ted Cruz fiercely defends Trump’s threat against Iran. The Economic Times. From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVBbx3HlpGA
[26] Bennett, G., & Sagalyn, D. (2026, March 3). Bolton says Iran war justified and critical for ‘peace and stability’ in Middle East. PBS. From: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/bolton-says-iran-war-justified-and-critical-for-peace-and-stability-in-middle-east
[27] UN. (1945). United Nations Charter, Chapter I: Purposes and Principles. UN. From: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-1
[28] ICJ. (1986, June 27). Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) – Judgment of the Court. ICJ. From: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/100900
[29] ICRC. (1949, August 12). Article 52 – General protection of civilian objects. ICRC. From: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-52
[30] ICRC. (n.d). Attacks against Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Civilian Population. ICRC. From: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule54
[31] ICRC. (n.d). Article 8 – War crimes. ICRC. From: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/icc-statute-amendment-art8-2010/article-8
[32] Wippman, D., & Altschuler, G. (2026, July 26). Trump’s threats to bomb Iran ‘back to the Stone Ages’ will backfire. The HILL. From: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/5986958-trump-threats-civilian-attacks-iran/
[33] Weiss, B. (2026, April 7). Lawmakers balk at Trump threat against ‘whole civilization’ in Iran war. Courthouse News Service. From: https://www.courthousenews.com/lawmakers-balk-at-trump-threat-against-whole-civilization-in-iran-war/
[34] Afghan Voice Agency. (2026, July 23). Iran’s sharp response to Trump’s threat: Any infrastructure in Iran targeted, regional energy facilities will be in range. AVA. From: https://www.avapress.com/en/news/361315/iran-s-sharp-response-to-trump-threat-any-infrastructure-in-targeted-regional-energy-facilities-will-be-range
[35] Harb, A. (2026, April 7). ‘No end in sight’ if Trump acts on threat to destroy Iran infrastructure. Al Jazeera. From: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/7/no-end-in-sight-if-trump-acts-on-threat-to-destroy-iran-infrastructure
