Wasn’t that in response to Trump posting that he’d hit theirs?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-hegseth-and...

> In a Truth Social post on March 30, Trump warned that the U.S. would obliterate "all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet 'touched.'"

▲

pjc50 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Iran was having a water crisis before all this, to the extent of considering relocating the capital city away from Tehran's current location. Bombing Iranian water infrastructure will kill a lot of civilians, just as similar things happened in the Yemeni civil war (which Iran is a participant in). It's disheartening how much the prospect of mass murder is met with a shrug.

▲

graemep 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It follows Trumps threats to destroy power plants, but predates the threat you quote. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/22/iran-says-dest...

AFAIK there is no exemption that says it is OK to commit war crimes if the other side does.

If attacking power plants and oil production is a war crime, then Russia, Ukraine, and many other countries are guilty of it.

	▲	embedding-shape 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> AFAIK there is no exemption that says it is OK to commit war crimes if the other side does. Of course not, but I still think the expectation that someone doesn't commit war crimes against you disappears relatively quickly when you're openly and proudly admitting you'll open to violating the rules of war and saying international humanitarian law doesn't matter.
	▲	nkrisc 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That may be so, but remember that Ukraine is fighting for its very survival, and Iran may be as well.

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Wasn’t that in response to Trump posting that he’d hit theirs?

It's Iran. They haven't been following international law since 1979. That isn't an excuse to commit war crimes against them. But Iran really doesn't have any legs to stand on when it comes to complaining about targeting civilian infrastructure–they and their proxies have been doing this for decades.

▲

curt15 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>They haven't been following international law since 1979.

History doesn't start in 1979. Why not go back to 1953? Overthrowing another country's elected government is no more conscionable under international law.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Why not go back to 1953? Overthrowing another country's elected government is no more conscionable under international law

Nobody said you can't. I don't think the point is undermined. Neither the U.S. nor Iran have shown any consistent affection for international law.

	▲	srean 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		This "both sides" game does not carry much weight when one side, the US and Britain, made the bad faith move on Iran first. Stubbing one's toe and complaining "both sides". The pebble and me. Complaining I am being hit back because I hit first, does not elicit support. Especially, when one is very less than forthcoming about who made the move on a sovereign country first. Made a move just because that country had resources you are interested in. If you want the resource then buy it. Norway nationalised it's oil, so can Iran.

▲

megous 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Just claiming something doesn't make it true. And also there's the whole scale thing.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> there's the whole scale thing Sort of? I don't think that's really how war crimes work. Unless we're objectively in eye-for-an-eye territory, in which case we're not really talking about international law anymore. (To be clear, I think everyone talking about international law in this conflict is posturing. We've been collectively setting new norms for years, and between Russia, China and America, the rules seem to have inched closer to total war.)