Introduction
Following the return of Donald Trump to office in 2025, his administration’s foreign policy approach—much like during his previous term—has been centered on unconditional support for Israel, the regional containment of Iran, and countering the rising power of China. His approach toward Iran has been grounded in the well-known “carrot and stick” strategy within the framework of foreign policy and international relations: on the one hand, claiming efforts to reach a form of agreement, while on the other, consistently issuing threats against Iran and its officials.
The culmination of these threats ultimately led to the outbreak of a war against Iran in cooperation with Israel, which began on February 28, 2026. This war was initially portrayed in press briefings as an effort to assist the Iranian people in achieving freedom and democracy. However, over time, it evolved into explicit threats involving attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure, the fragmentation of the country, and attempts to control Iranian oil resources.
This development has raised serious questions in the minds of both Iranian and global public opinion as to the true objectives behind these actions, as well as the broader implications of such threats when issued by high-ranking and official authorities.
Incidents
- Threats to Destroy Iran’s Energy Infrastructure
Following the outbreak of the war, on March 22, 2026, Donald Trump stated on his personal social media platform, Truth Social, that he was giving Iranian authorities two days to surrender and reach an agreement, warning that otherwise Iran’s energy infrastructure would be destroyed.
Although he later extended the deadline and temporarily delayed the threat, he continued this pattern. On April 5, 2026, in a statement outside conventional diplomatic norms, he used offensive language toward Iranian officials and threatened that if the Strait of Hormuz were not reopened, “you will live in hell[1].”
During the intervals between these ultimatums, he repeatedly reiterated his threatening positions through social media posts and press interactions. In one instance, according to Associated Press, on April 1, 2026, he publicly declared that if no agreement were reached with Tehran, the United States would escalate its offensive operations to completely destroy power plants, oil wells, Kharg Island, and potentially desalination facilities[2].
Additionally, one day prior to this statement, as reported by Axios, Trump threatened to wipe out Iran’s energy and water infrastructure[3].
He further escalated his rhetoric on April 7, 2026, stating on Truth Social:
“A whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.”
- Threats Regarding the Seizure of Iran’s Oil
One of the recurring justifications presented by Trump in his speeches and press engagements for exerting pressure on Tehran has been the idea of seizing Iran’s oil resources, similar to what he claims occurred in Venezuela. He explicitly asserted that following the detention of Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s oil came under U.S. control.
Since the beginning of the war on February 28, 2026, he has repeatedly used phrases such as “taking Iran’s oil.” In one of his latest statements, reported by Time, on March 31, 2026, he remarked:
“To be honest with you, my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran but some stupid people back in the US say: ‘why are you doing that?[4]”
Similarly, according to France 24, two days earlier on March 30, 2026, he stated that if no agreement were reached, he would destroy Iran’s oil export hub on Kharg Island in order to seize its oil[5].
- Threats Related to the Fragmentation of Iran
In a phone interview on Sunday morning, April 5, 2026, with Trey Yingst on Fox News, Trump stated that the United States had been directly involved in efforts to destabilize and overthrow the Iranian government weeks prior to the February 28 airstrikes carried out jointly by the United States and Israel across Iran.
Yingst reported that:
“He told me, ‘We sent them a lot of guns. We sent them to the Kurds.’ And the president says he thinks the Kurds kept them.”
He further added that weapons had been sent in significant quantities to protesters[6].
Such statements, coupled with the reported transfer of weapons to Kurdish separatist groups, strongly indicate efforts and intentions by the Trump administration toward the fragmentation of Iran.
Challenges and Responses
- Violation of the Right to Self-Determination
The right to self-determination, as one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law, is recognized in key instruments such as the United Nations Charter and the International Covenants on Human Rights. Under this principle, all peoples have the right to freely determine their political, economic, social, and cultural systems without external interference.
This principle has occupied a central position not only in historical decolonization processes but also within the current international legal order. Any external action that undermines a state’s political independence or territorial integrity may therefore be considered in conflict with this principle.
Within this framework, statements and actions attributed to U.S. officials—including threats of territorial fragmentation, the transfer of weapons to separatist groups, and efforts to destabilize Iran’s governing structures—can be assessed in light of the right to self-determination. If substantiated, such actions may constitute instances of intervention in the internal affairs of a state—intervention that conflicts not only with the principle of non-intervention but also with the right to self-determination.
Moreover, the linkage between these actions and broader military threats—such as attacks on critical infrastructure or attempts to seize natural resources—indicates the emergence of a multi-layered pattern of pressure that may significantly affect a nation’s capacity to exercise its free will. In this sense, the right to self-determination is challenged not only at the political level but also at economic and territorial levels.
From the perspective of international law, such conduct—absent authorization by the United Nations Security Council or the fulfillment of the conditions for self-defense—may be regarded as a violation of peremptory norms (jus cogens)[7], the breach of which entails serious legal consequences for state responsibility. Accordingly, the continuation of such approaches may, beyond their political and security implications, contribute to the erosion of the foundations of the international legal order.
- Use of Force in International Law
In international law, the foundational principle governing relations among states is the prohibition of the use of force. This principle is codified in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits states from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of other states[8].
The primary exceptions to this rule are:
- self-defense in response to an armed attack, and
- actions authorized by the United Nations Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security.
Beyond actual military operations, public threats issued by official U.S. and Israeli authorities against Iranian infrastructure may also, under this provision, constitute threats of force, which—if lacking lawful justification—represent independent violations of international law.
Accordingly, any military operation conducted outside these frameworks is subject to assessment as a violation of international law and may even qualify as an act of aggression. From a legal standpoint, the joint U.S.-Israeli operations against Iran clearly constitute an international armed conflict, and therefore a form of war, regardless of any debate within U.S. domestic law concerning its legal classification.
The United States has advanced three legal justifications for this war:
- humanitarian intervention
- regime change
- self-defense
None of these justifications aligns with the stringent criteria of international law. Humanitarian intervention without Security Council authorization is generally regarded as unlawful; regime change is explicitly inconsistent with the UN Charter; and self-defense requires the existence of an imminent armed attack, for which sufficient evidence has not been presented[9].
In this context, Matthew Bunn has stated that the war is incompatible with the UN Charter due to the absence of an imminent threat from Iran. He further noted that, under U.S. domestic law, the war was initiated without following the required congressional procedures[10].
In light of the above, it can be concluded that both the initiation of U.S. military operations against Iran and the public threats issued by U.S. and Israeli officials are highly likely to constitute unlawful uses of force, potentially amounting to inter-state aggression.
- Domestic Reactions
More than 100 prominent international law experts in the United States, in an open letter published on Just Security, warned that U.S. attacks against Iran could constitute violations of international law and even war crimes. The letter, issued in response to recent statements and threats by Donald Trump, highlights concerns regarding the targeting of civilian infrastructure, including schools, healthcare facilities, and residential areas.
The experts also referenced statements by U.S. officials, including the Secretary of Defense, suggesting disregard for the rules of engagement. The attack on a girls’ school on the first day of the war—resulting in the deaths of 175 individuals—was cited as a particularly serious example. The signatories called for urgent adherence to the principles of international humanitarian law, including distinction and proportionality[11].
Chris Murphy similarly described Trump’s threats as a clear war crime, emphasizing that targeting civilian infrastructure such as bridges and power plants constitutes a direct violation of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. He warned that such actions would endanger thousands of civilians and severely damage the international credibility of the United States.
Other prominent Democratic figures also reacted strongly. Chuck Schumer characterized the statements as threats of war crimes and detrimental to relations with allies, while Hakeem Jeffries described them as “disgusting and irrational[12].”
Further criticism came from across the political spectrum. Bernie Sanders labeled the remarks as evidence of “dangerous and unstable behavior” and called for immediate congressional action to end the war. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former ally of Trump, condemned the policies as contrary to campaign promises and even “evil,” highlighting their humanitarian consequences. Tim Kaine described the statements as “shameful and childish,” warning of increased risks to U.S. forces, while Ro Khanna called for an immediate ceasefire, noting the contradiction with U.S. interests in the region[13].
Collectively, these reactions indicate a broad and growing concern among U.S. policymakers regarding the legal, humanitarian, and strategic consequences of such threats, as well as a widening divide within U.S. foreign policy approaches.
A local U.S. news outlet, Everett Post, citing ABC News, analyzed the potential consequences of attacks on Iran’s infrastructure. According to the report, such attacks could generate multi-layered humanitarian, regional, and global impacts. Domestically, due to Iran’s heavy reliance on natural gas—particularly the South Pars field—for electricity generation, disruptions could deprive millions of access to power and jeopardize critical services such as hospitals, directly endangering lives.
Regionally, potential retaliatory attacks by Iran on energy infrastructure and desalination facilities in neighboring countries could escalate the crisis across the Persian Gulf, especially given the region’s reliance on desalination for drinking water. Overall, targeting Iran’s energy infrastructure could trigger cascading humanitarian, economic, and security crises beyond national borders[14].
The Associated Press also reported that experts view threats to seize Kharg Island as highly risky and lacking guarantees of success. Such actions could expose U.S. forces to direct threats due to the island’s proximity to Iran and increase the likelihood of escalation. Moreover, even if disrupted, Iran could maintain limited oil exports through alternative routes, while global energy markets could experience instability[15].
- International Reactions
Amnesty International condemned Trump’s threats to attack Iran’s power plants, stating that such actions could constitute war crimes. The organization emphasized that targeting civilian infrastructure—even if alleged to have military use—would be unlawful if it causes disproportionate harm to civilians.
According to Amnesty, attacks on electricity networks could trigger cascading consequences, including water supply collapse, disruption of healthcare services, food insecurity, and rising unemployment, thereby violating fundamental rights such as the rights to life, health, and an adequate standard of living[16].
European officials also expressed concern. António Costa stated that targeting civilian infrastructure, particularly energy facilities, is illegal and unacceptable under international law and may constitute war crimes. The European Union emphasized that such actions violate core principles of international humanitarian law, including distinction and proportionality, and warned of severe consequences for civilian populations[17].
The Guardian further reported on the dilemma faced by U.S. military personnel. According to journalist Julian Borger, U.S. officers may be forced to choose between disobeying orders and committing potential war crimes. Former military legal advisors noted that Trump’s rhetoric contradicts decades of legal training within the armed forces and risks placing personnel in untenable ethical and legal positions[18].
Conclusion
An examination of the statements, threats, and actions outlined in this report indicates that the declared policies of the United States toward Iran encompass multiple dimensions, ranging from military and economic pressure to efforts aimed at influencing internal structures. This approach—manifested through threats to destroy critical infrastructure, seize natural resources, and even pursue scenarios related to territorial fragmentation—raises serious questions regarding its underlying objectives, legal legitimacy, and humanitarian consequences.
From the perspective of international law, such actions—absent a lawful basis—may conflict with fundamental principles, including the prohibition of the use of force, respect for the territorial integrity of states, and the right to self-determination. Furthermore, targeting vital civilian infrastructure, including energy and water facilities, may result in widespread consequences for civilian populations and, in certain circumstances, may be assessed as violations of international humanitarian law and even as constituting war crimes.
At the humanitarian level, available analyses suggest that such threats could generate a chain of secondary crises—from disruptions in access to essential services such as electricity and water, to the exacerbation of food insecurity and the imposition of significant economic pressures on civilian populations. At the regional level, the risk of escalation and instability—particularly in strategic areas such as the Strait of Hormuz—may produce consequences extending far beyond national borders.
At the same time, widespread domestic reactions within the United States, alongside the positions of international human rights bodies, reflect significant concern regarding the legal, ethical, and strategic implications of such an approach. These responses demonstrate that even within the U.S. political structure, there is no clear consensus regarding the legitimacy or effectiveness of these policies.
Ultimately, the continuation of this trajectory not only heightens the risk of intensified conflict and regional instability but may also contribute to the erosion of the foundational principles of international law and the global human rights framework. In such circumstances, the necessity of returning to international legal frameworks, strengthening diplomacy, and refraining from unilateral actions becomes increasingly evident. Only through such avenues can further escalation be prevented and the expansion of humanitarian consequences effectively mitigated.
References
[1] Greenall, R., & Mann, T. (2026, April 6). Trump issues expletive-laden threat to Iran over Hormuz Strait blockage. BBC. From: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg0q6wdzp1o
[2] Gambrell, J., & Boak, J., & Corder, M. (2026, March 31). Trump again threatens widespread destruction in Iran if a deal is not reached ‘shortly’. The Associated Press. From: https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-israel-trump-lebanon-march-30-2026-8abb0ee50be4cd8dd9ddde3a9d846ef8
[3] Ravid, B. (2026, March 30). Trump threatens to “obliterate” Iran’s energy and water infrastructure. Axios. From: https://www.axios.com/2026/03/30/trump-threaten-iran-oil-energy-obliterate
[4] Sutherland, C. (2026, April 1). Here’s What Trump Has Said About Seizing Iran’s Key Oil Hub Kharg Island. TIME. From: https://time.com/article/2026/03/30/trump-comments-about-seizing-iran-kharg-island-oil-hub/
[5] O’Brien, P. (2026, March 30). Trump threatens to destroy Iran’s Kharg Island oil hub if no deal reached. France24. From: https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20260330-trump-threatens-to-obliterate-iran-kharg-island-oil-hub-if-no-deal-reached-usa-strait-of-hormuz
[6] Lawal, S. (2026, April 6). Has Trump confirmed Iran’s claim that protesters were US-armed. Al Jazeera. From: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/6/has-trump-confirmed-irans-claim-that-protesters-were-us-armed
[7] Johnston, K. (2021). Identifying the Jus Cogens Norm in the Jus ad Bellum. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2021, 70(1), 29-57. doi:10.1017/S0020589320000500
[8] UN. (n.d). United Nations Charter (full text). UN. From: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
[9] D’Alessandra, F. (2026, March 31). Operation Epic Fury and the International Law on the Use of Force. Carnegie. From: https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/research/2026/03/operation-epic-fury-and-the-international-law-on-the-use-of-force
[10] Bunn, M. (2026, February 28). Trump’s war on Iran: grave dangers and, at best, limited benefits. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. From: https://thebulletin.org/2026/02/trumps-war-on-iran-grave-dangers-and-at-best-limited-benefits/
[11] Dannenbaum, T., & Hamilton, R., & Haque, A., & Hathaway, O., & Rona, G. (2026, April 13). Over 100 International Law Experts Warn: U.S. Strikes on Iran Violate UN Charter and May Be War Crimes. Just Security. From: https://www.justsecurity.org/135423/professors-letter-international-law-iran-war/
[12] Rego, M. (2026, April 5). Chris Murphy on Trump’s Iran threat: ‘A clear war crime’. The Hill. From: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5817456-murphy-slams-trump-iran-threats/
[13] Campbell, L. (2026, April 6). ‘Unhinged madman’: US politicians react to Trump’s expletive-laden threat to Iran. The Guardian. From: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/05/trump-iran-threats-politician-reactions
[14] ABC News. (2026, March 27). As Trump postpones threatened attacks on Iran’s power plants, experts warn of the potential humanitarian crisis. Everett Post. From: https://www.everettpost.com/business/as-trump-postpones-threatened-attacks-on-irans-power-plants-experts-warn-of-the-potential-humanitarian-crisis/
[15] Finley, B., & Metz, S. (2026, March 31). Seizing Kharg Island would risk US troops’ lives and may not end Iran war, experts say. The Associated Press. From: https://apnews.com/article/kharg-island-seize-ground-troops-oil-iran-4244166c19dd33689f8a59e96e1d7d5b
[16] Amnesty International. (2026, March 24). Trump’s warning that USA will attack Iran’s power plants is a threat to commit war crimes. Amnesty International. From: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/03/trump-warning-attack-iran-power-plants-is-threat-to-commit-war-crimes/
[17] Gavin, G. (2026, April 6). EU warns Trump against ‘illegal’ bombing of Iran’s power stations. Politico. From: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-warn-donald-trump-illegal-bombing-iran-power-station-antonio-costa/
[18] Borger, J. (2026, April 6). Trump threats cause dilemma for US officers: disobey orders or commit war crimes. The Guardian. From: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/apr/06/trump-threats-dilemma-for-officers-disobey-orders-or-commit-war-crimes
