WASHINGTON - s4story -- President Trump has called off his threat to bomb bridges and power plants in Iran; perhaps in part because many are claiming that it would constitute a war crime.

But such attacks may not necessarily constitute war crimes, suggests public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

He suggests that they might be defensible for either one (or both) of two reasons:
■ because of the doctrines permitting effective self defense and a proportionate response (proportionality)
AND/OR
■ the dual function rationale; that bridges and power plants can each serve military as well as civilian purposes.

Iran could hardly claim to be the innocent victim of war crimes if certain facilities are attacked when it has itself carried out many successful attacks on civilian facilities in other countries, suggests Banzhaf.  The right of self defense - whether for individuals or countries - includes the right to defend yourself effectively, and to retaliate proportionately where appropriate.

More on S For Story

• As Global Tensions Rise, Demand Grows for Private Spaces to Process Thoughts and Speak Freely Online
• Award-Winning Bilingual Children's Author's Book Featured in Mesa Public Library
• Cryptsoft demonstrates Hybrid-PQC Authentication Token use for quantum-safe systems and infrastructure
• Expert Law Attorneys' Top Law Firms to Know: March 2026
• Wordeee Publishes Beloved Television Personality Judge Hatchett's "GOAL GIRLS"

A proportionate response to Iran's repeated attacks on civilian targets arguably might be to attack its mixed civilian-military targets such as bridges and power plants, especially when it seems that such attacks on structures would substantially reduce deaths among civilians.

So, if Iran targets civilian facilities, it arguably cannot demand protection from an equal proportionate response, says the law professor.

If two men agree to a fist fight, but one pulls out a knife, his opponent is certainly justified in pulling out a knife of his own, since being forced to use only his fists against a knife is both unfair and foolhardy, argues Banzhaf.

The well known adage - "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" - encapsulates this common sense analysis.  If a person is attacked by someone with a gun, he is not limited - in law or logic - to trying to defend himself with only with a knife, and not using a gun if it is available in his holster.

More on S For Story

• Sudi Mohamud Releases Fighting for Tomorrow, a Powerful Story of Motherhood, Illness, and Resilience
• Thorn & Bloom Magazine Releases Fifth Issue: Rooted & Ruptured
• Green Office Partner Strengthens Global Operations with Mexico-Based DigitalVAAR Partnership
• P-Wave Classics Announces the Publication of The Female Quixote, Volume I, by Charlotte Lennox
• Everwild Music Festival Unveils 2026 Schedule: No Overlapping Sets, Longer Performances, and Epic Late-Night Sets!

Similarly, if Iran continues to strike civilian targets in other countries - and especially in countries which have not attacked Iran at all - those seeking to put an end to hostilities may be forced to do the same to the unlawful aggressor.

Otherwise, if limited to striking targets in Iran which are solely military and provide no benefit at all to civilians, the U.S. would be forced to fight with one hand tied behind its back, and that's clearly unfair and unreasonable, says Banzhaf.

Indeed, since there now may be very few solely military targets left to strike, the U.S. might not be able to end Iran's unlawful blockage of the Strait of Hormuz if it can't broaden the scope of its attacks, he says.

http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf