> Will anything be done about that I wonder

Most probably nothing. If things get really bad and there is a revolution or something of that magnitude in the US there may be a Nuremberg moment. Don’t count on it. Whatever government will come next will do everything they can to shield American generals and officials because otherwise they would be afraid the same thing would happen to them once they leave office. The only thing that could keep these people accountable is the American people through Congress. So yeah, probably nothing. Which is bad, because these war crimes are up there with what supposedly evil regimes did in the past.

Where do you even find this?

Even if true, it's legally incorrect, btw. There are 2 kinds of warcrimes: Rome treaty (the only legal definition) and Geneva convention. The Rome treaty allows countries to opt-out of the treaty, and then nothing on their territory qualifies as a war crime. Iran has opted out of the Rome treaty, and so when it comes to international law, nothing that happens on Iranian soil is a war crime.

And we all know WHY islamists want it that way. But of course they will confuse matters as propaganda ...

Second, "colloquial" definition of a war crime are Geneva convention violations. And ignoring that EVERY attack Iran executed in the 2 days was a warcrime in that definition. Every last one. They didn't even try to go after military targets for days. But ignoring that.

What warcrimes do, in the sense of the Geneva convention, is that they are justifications for the UNSC to intervene, should it want to. Well, Russia, China and France have just declared that the UNSC does not follow the reasoning that these are warcrimes. Not because they don't believe Geneva convention violations aren't heinous crimes (of course Iran has violated it constantly for 50+ years with constant heinous crimes), but that these states don't see any reason to act.

Why did he start the war?

Why do you think he actually started the war?

As opposed to the myriad of reasons he and the administration have given, differing sometimes on an hourly basis, as to why he started it?

You just would have rather have been lied to that this war was to "spread democracy"?

"Vanishingly small" is a polite way of saying it.

I said "semblance of international law"

Attacking your attacker defends your freedom. Spontaneously attacking another country does not protect their freedom.

Or in Gaza, and it is not an accident. As far as they are concerned it’s working great. Israel is in a state of permanent warfare, which completely silences any kind of debate about what country it wants to be, enables racist nationalists who can freely go about burning villages, and it keeps Bibi out of prison. None of what has happened in the last 20 years or so in the region strikes me as particularly well thought out with a long term strategy besides keeping all their neighbours in the Middle Ages.