Bombing the Wells: Is the US Committing War Crimes in Iran?

What Happened on June 9

  <p>On June 9, 2026, the US launched a new round of airstrikes on Iran. According to Iranian state media (IRIB) and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, US forces struck targets in Jask, Sirik, and Qeshm — including <strong>two drinking water reservoirs</strong> in the Bemani district of Sirik County: a 500-cubic-meter tank and a 2,000-cubic-meter tank.<sup><a href="#s1">[1]</a></sup><sup><a href="#s2">[2]</a></sup></p>

  <p>Water distribution was halted across all villages in the Bemani district and the city of Kuhestak. The Bemani district had a population of 31,550 people (2016 census).<sup><a href="#s2">[2]</a></sup></p>

  <p>US Central Command described the strikes as "a proportional response to unjustified Iranian aggression," following the crash of an Army AH-64 Apache helicopter near the Strait of Hormuz that President Trump blamed on Iran.<sup><a href="#s1">[1]</a></sup></p>

  <p>The US has not addressed the water reservoir strikes specifically.</p>

  <h2>A Pattern, Not an Incident</h2>

  <p>The Bemani strikes are not the first time US forces have hit Iranian water infrastructure in this war. The pattern is documented:</p>

  <div>
    <div>
      <div>February 28, 2026</div>
      <p>US-Israeli strikes begin. Amnesty International reports a strike on Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab kills 156 people, including 120 children.<sup><a href="#s6">[6]</a></sup></p>
    </div>
    <div>
      <div>March 7, 2026</div>
      <p>Iran accuses the US of striking a desalination plant on Qeshm Island, cutting water to 30 villages. The US denies responsibility. The plant remained offline a month later.<sup><a href="#s3">[3]</a></sup></p>
    </div>
    <div>
      <div>March 21, 2026</div>
      <p>Trump threatens Iran's electrical grid and energy infrastructure, issuing a 48-hour deadline to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.<sup><a href="#s4">[4]</a></sup></p>
    </div>
    <div>
      <div>March 30, 2026</div>
      <p>Trump explicitly threatens to "blow up and completely obliterate" Iran's power plants, oil wells, and "possibly all desalinization plants."<sup><a href="#s4">[4]</a></sup></p>
    </div>
    <div>
      <div>April 8, 2026</div>
      <p>Ceasefire announced — the deadliest single day of the war in Lebanon (300+ killed).</p>
    </div>
    <div>
      <div>June 9, 2026</div>
      <p>Ceasefire collapses. US strikes destroy two water reservoirs in Bemani district, cutting water to 31,550 people.<sup><a href="#s1">[1]</a></sup><sup><a href="#s2">[2]</a></sup></p>
    </div>
  </div>

  <div>
    <div>
      <span>3,468</span>
      <span>Iranians killed</span>
    </div>
    <div>
      <span>376</span>
      <span>Children killed</span>
    </div>
    <div>
      <span>132,000+</span>
      <span>Civilian structures hit</span>
    </div>
    <div>
      <span>65</span>
      <span>Schools struck</span>
    </div>
  </div>

  <p>These figures come from Iran's Ministry of Health and the Iranian Red Crescent Society. The US disputes them, but independent verification is limited due to restricted media access.<sup><a href="#s5">[5]</a></sup><sup><a href="#s6">[6]</a></sup></p>

  <h2>What the Law Actually Says</h2>

  <p>This is not a gray area. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977), Article 54, addresses this directly:</p>

  <div>
    <span>Article 54 — Protection of Objects Indispensable to Civilian Survival</span>
    "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, <strong>drinking water installations and supplies</strong>, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party."<br><br>
    "In no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement."
  </div>

  <p>The Fourth Geneva Convention separately prohibits collective punishment — penalizing an entire civilian population for the actions of its government or military.<sup><a href="#s8">[8]</a></sup></p>

  <p>The US is a party to the Geneva Conventions. It signed but never ratified Additional Protocol I. However, the US military's own Law of War Manual recognizes the prohibition on targeting objects indispensable to civilian survival as binding customary international law.</p>

  <h2>Is It a War Crime?</h2>

  <div>
    <h3>VERDICT</h3>
    <p>Under international humanitarian law, deliberately destroying drinking water infrastructure serving a civilian population is prohibited. The legal text names "drinking water installations and supplies" explicitly. The Bemani water reservoirs served 31,550 civilians. Destroying them cut off all water to the district.</p>
    <p>If the US intentionally targeted these reservoirs, it is a violation of the laws of armed conflict. If the US struck them through negligence or recklessness — without verifying they were military targets — this is also prohibited under the principle of precaution.</p>
    <p><strong>The strongest counter-argument:</strong> The US could argue the reservoirs were co-located with or used by military forces, making them dual-use targets. Under international law, dual-use objects can be targeted if the military advantage is concrete and direct, and the civilian harm is not excessive in relation to that advantage (the proportionality test). However, water reservoirs for 31,550 civilians are a difficult case to make on proportionality — and the US has not attempted to make it.</p>
  </div>

  <h2>Who Has Called It a War Crime</h2>

  <p>The assessment that US strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure constitute war crimes — or at minimum raise serious war-crime concerns — is not limited to Iranian officials or anti-war activists. The list includes:</p>

  <ul>
    <li><strong>100+ US-based international law professors</strong> — signed an open letter stating US strikes "raise serious concerns about violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including potential war crimes," citing strikes on schools, hospitals, water desalination plants, and energy infrastructure.<sup><a href="#s7">[7]</a></sup></li>
    <li><strong>Amnesty International</strong> — called the Minab school strike an act that "must be investigated as a war crime" and demanded criminal prosecution.<sup><a href="#s6">[6]</a></sup></li>
    <li><strong>Human Rights Watch</strong> — urged investigation of the school attack as a war crime.<sup><a href="#s9">[9]</a></sup></li>
    <li><strong>Genocide Watch</strong> — stated that threats to destroy civilian infrastructure "are incitements to commit war crimes" and, if carried out, constitute "war crimes whether committed by Iran, Israel, or the USA."<sup><a href="#s8">[8]</a></sup></li>
    <li><strong>Luis Moreno Ocampo</strong> (founding ICC chief prosecutor) — said Trump's threats to destroy Iranian infrastructure "could constitute war crimes."<sup><a href="#s10">[10]</a></sup></li>
    <li><strong>ICC Prosecutor</strong> — accepted evidence submitted by the Iranian Red Crescent Society as "official evidence" for potential war crimes investigation.<sup><a href="#s10">[10]</a></sup></li>
  </ul>

  <p>Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's declaration of "no quarter, no mercy" was separately flagged by the 100+ law professors as likely violating the US War Crimes statute (18 U.S.C. 2441).<sup><a href="#s7">[7]</a></sup></p>

  <h2>The Accountability Question</h2>

  <p>This is where the analysis gets bleak. The question is not whether the law has been broken — multiple credible bodies say it has. The question is whether anyone with jurisdiction and enforcement power will act. The answer, structurally, is no.</p>

  <h3>Barrier 1: The ICC Cannot Reach the US</h3>

  <p>The US never ratified the Rome Statute, so the ICC has no automatic jurisdiction. The only workaround — a UN Security Council referral — is vetoed by the US itself. This is not speculation; it is how the system was designed.<sup><a href="#s11">[11]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>Barrier 2: Iran Hasn't Granted ICC Jurisdiction</h3>

  <p>Iran also did not ratify the Rome Statute. Under Article 12(3), Iran could file a declaration accepting ICC jurisdiction over crimes on its territory from a specific date. Human rights groups have urged Iran to do this. As of June 2026, Iran has not.<sup><a href="#s10">[10]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>Barrier 3: The American Servicemembers' Protection Act</h3>

  <p>US law (passed in 2002) authorizes the president to use "all means necessary and appropriate" — including military force — to free any American from ICC custody. It is colloquially known as "The Hague Invasion Act."<sup><a href="#s11">[11]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>Barrier 4: Executive Order 14203</h3>

  <p>In 2025, Trump signed an executive order imposing sanctions on ICC prosecutors who investigate protected individuals — including their family members.<sup><a href="#s11">[11]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>Barrier 5: Domestic Immunity</h3>

  <p>The Supreme Court's <em>Trump v. United States</em> decision grants presidents sweeping immunity for official acts, with "official acts" defined broadly enough to cover virtually any military command.<sup><a href="#s11">[11]</a></sup></p>

  <div>
    <strong>The precedent that matters:</strong> The ICC has issued arrest warrants for Russian commanders for destroying Ukrainian power infrastructure — finding "reasonable grounds" that directing "a campaign of strikes against numerous electric power plants and sub-stations" constitutes "the war crime of directing attacks at civilian objects."<sup><a href="#s8">[8]</a></sup> The legal standard applied to Russia is identical to what is happening in Iran. The difference is not legal. It is political.
  </div>

  <h2>Fighting Citizens, Not Soldiers?</h2>

  <p>The user's instinct — "it feels like the US is no longer fighting the Iranian military but the citizens instead" — aligns with the data.</p>

  <p>Of 3,468 Iranians killed as of June 1, the documented casualties include 376 children, 496 women, and seven infants. The IRCS estimates 132,000+ civilian structures destroyed, including 65 schools, 14 medical centers, 5,535 residential units, and 1,041 commercial units.<sup><a href="#s5">[5]</a></sup></p>

  <p>The US and Israel claim they target military and nuclear infrastructure. Some strikes clearly have: nuclear enrichment facilities, IRGC command centers, air defense systems. But the pattern of what <em>else</em> gets hit — schools, hospitals, water systems, power grids, a desalination plant — combined with Trump's explicit threats to destroy civilian infrastructure if a deal isn't reached, describes something closer to a coercion campaign aimed at the population than a military operation aimed at the armed forces.</p>

  <blockquote>
    "You can't deliberately harm an entire civilian population to pressure its government. That is clearly an act of collective punishment, which is prohibited under international humanitarian law."
    <cite>— Yusra Suedi, Professor of Public International Law, University of Manchester<sup><a href="#s4">[4]</a></sup></cite>
  </blockquote>

  <blockquote>
    "This is clear, public evidence of criminal intent. It is textbook collective punishment and a war crime."
    <cite>— Raed Jarrar, Advocacy Director, DAWN<sup><a href="#s4">[4]</a></sup></cite>
  </blockquote>

  <p>Trump's own statements make the strategic logic explicit: he threatened to obliterate civilian infrastructure <em>unless Iran agrees to a deal</em>. This is, by definition, using civilian suffering as leverage — the textbook definition of collective punishment under the Fourth Geneva Convention.</p>

  <h2>The Honest Answer</h2>

  <p><strong>Is the US destroying civilian drinking water facilities?</strong> Yes. The June 9 strikes on Bemani water reservoirs are the latest confirmed instance. The March 7 desalination plant strike on Qeshm Island is disputed but the plant remained offline. Trump has openly threatened to escalate against water infrastructure.</p>

  <p><strong>Is this a war crime?</strong> Under international humanitarian law, attacking drinking water infrastructure that serves a civilian population is prohibited — explicitly, by name, in Article 54 of Additional Protocol I and in customary international law that the US itself recognizes. Over 100 international law professors, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Genocide Watch, and the founding ICC chief prosecutor have stated that US strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure constitute war crimes or warrant investigation as such. The strongest counter-argument — that these are dual-use targets — has not been advanced by the US for the water infrastructure strikes, and would face a steep proportionality challenge.</p>

  <p><strong>Will anyone hold the US accountable?</strong> No. Not through existing international institutions. The US is not subject to ICC jurisdiction, holds a Security Council veto over any referral, has a domestic law authorizing military force against the ICC itself, and grants its presidents sweeping immunity for official acts. Iran could theoretically grant the ICC jurisdiction over crimes on its territory, but has not done so. The same legal standard being applied to Russian commanders for striking Ukrainian power plants is not being applied to the US — not because the law is different, but because the enforcement architecture was built with a P5 exemption.</p>

  <p>The system is working as designed. That is the problem.</p>