President Donald Trump wants to make a dramatic show of force against Iran — potentially one that implicates U.S. soldiers in war crimes under international law. And he has consistently been unwilling to back down during internal conversations, sources familiar with administration discussions said.
Combined with the Trump administration’s ongoing push to delegitimize the International Criminal Court, one of the global institutions meant to uphold standards for warfare, observers fear the U.S. is rapidly moving to abandon norms meant to shield human rights.
“It’s not the first time the U.S. has gone on a rampage to try and kill the court,” said Rebecca Hamilton, a former International Criminal Court lawyer, who noted that U.S. officials also tried to limit the body’s reach during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “When they’re attacking the court like this, it raises the question of, Why are you so scared of this court?”
The U.S. has launched renewed strikes against Iran for 13 days in a row, and Trump threatened on Wednesday to destroy an Iranian bridge or power plant each time Iran strikes a ship attempting to cross the Strait of Hormuz. Such an attack could have severe consequences for many civilians, who under international law countries are supposed to shield from military campaigns.
Trending
“The threat itself may violate [international law], and if U.S. forces actually carried through on the threat then yes, that would likely violate” the law, said Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer. He noted that rules around war bar indiscriminate attacks — those without clear military objectives — as well as threats against civilian objects or those intended to terrorize civilians.
Trump is showing signs of moving forward. Two sources familiar with administration thinking told NOTUS they expect a significant U.S. blitz against Iran in the coming days, motivated by Trump’s desire to look as though he is dominating Tehran. Neither source was authorized to speak on the record.
The “best” hope for de-escalation “is Trump is super distracted beautifying the District,” one source said, nodding to the president’s fixation on design choices around Washington. The likeliest outcome, they said: “pointless escalation.”
But the second source said many Cabinet members and military leaders have failed to be frank with Trump about the risks of launching his war on Iran in partnership with Israel, where officials have urged an assertive approach over diplomacy. Both sources expressed frustration with Brad Cooper, U.S. Central Command’s current chief, with one saying he could be the driving force behind added but likely futile American attacks.
U.S. Central Command did not respond to a NOTUS request for comment. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, wrote in an email: “The United States signed [a memorandum of understanding] with Iran and they broke it, shot at commercial ships, and killed American soldiers. President Trump is not going to stand by and allow this terrorist behavior to occur. Iran is paying in massive bombs, night after night, and they will continue to pay until they come to the table in, what President Trump deems, a meaningful way.”
Experts on Iran say added U.S. military pressure has a low chance of securing the outcome Trump seeks: normal traffic through the strait for vital oil and gas shipments. Despite the U.S. signing an agreement with Iran in June that references Hormuz — among other disagreements between the two countries — and providing escorts and naval coordination for ships, energy flows remain low, with Iran arguing the U.S. is not respecting its claims to the strait. And now, the Iran-backed Houthi militia in Yemen has warned it will close another major shipping route on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula, which could further damage the global economy. Trump has also threatened the Houthis in response.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has launched a campaign against the International Criminal Court, saying this month the body poses “an intolerable threat to U.S. sovereignty” and alleging it seeks to target Americans.
“There are certainly grounds for being very concerned” about the legal implications of Trump’s discussion of targeting Iranian infrastructure, said Hamilton, who is now a professor at American University.
The International Criminal Court, established by the Rome Statute in 2002, considers serious crimes and violations of international law that are not being fairly examined by domestic courts, serving as a court of last resort. U.S. officials were heavily involved in crafting the Rome Statute, but the country has never joined the court, despite previously supporting its investigations into figures including Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump has reportedly spoken of aligning with Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping to undermine the body.
Trump has also defended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who judges at the International Criminal Court say should stand trial for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity over Israel’s U.S.-backed military offensive in Gaza. (Netanyahu has denied any criminality.)
The court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as a leader of the Palestinian militant group Hamas, in 2024. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani said this month he would like to uphold the warrant and arrest Netanyahu if he visits the city for a United Nations summit in September, but lacks the legal ability to do so. Trump has retorted that Netanyahu will not be arrested if he comes to the U.S.
The U.S. and Iran aren’t members of the International Criminal Court, which limits its ability to probe either nation’s actions in this war. (Palestine is a member, which allowed the court to investigate Netanyahu and Gallant for actions on its territory.)
But 125 nations — most of the world’s countries — are members. With Rubio calling the court a threat to American sovereignty, Hamilton argued the U.S. should respect other states’ sovereign choices. On Friday, member states attempted to address a controversy that has plagued the court for more than a year by voting to remove its prosecutor, Karim Khan, over accusations of misconduct. Khan suggested he was targeted for his work on Gaza. For now, the warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant remain valid, though some worry a new prosecutor will downplay them, weakening the court’s work and the idea that some norms for behavior must be upheld.
Amid concerns about eroding international law, Mark Kersten, a professor at the University of Fraser Valley in Canada, said other nations could defend the court by increasing actions to uphold its warrants or allotting it more resources.
“The real story here is just how sensitive the United States is to the probability of being named in any kind of investigation” as its wars expand, he said.
Author
