International Law, War Crimes and the War In Iran
Get the full intelligence
Search transcripts, export clips, track mentions, and explore all topics from “International Law, War Crimes and the War In Iran” inside PodZeus.
This episode of The Brian Lehrer Show examines the intersection of international law, war crimes, and escalating military rhetoric in the context of the U.S.-Iran conflict and ongoing violence in Lebanon and Gaza. Host Brian Lehrer opens with a chilling clip from Robert McNamara’s 2004 documentary *The Fog of War*, in which the former U.S. Defense Secretary admits the U.S. committed war crimes during World War II through the firebombing of Japanese cities and the use of nuclear weapons. The discussion then pivots to current events, focusing on President Trump’s inflammatory threats—calling Iran’s regime 'effing bastards,' vowing to destroy all Iranian power plants and bridges, and declaring that Iran’s 'whole civilization will die'—which both guests, Rachel Van Landingham and Eliav Lieblik, condemn as potential war crimes and criminal rhetoric. They emphasize that such statements violate the law of war by threatening indiscriminate attacks and spreading terror, and could dangerously influence military decision-making on the ground. The conversation explores the legal definitions of lawful military objectives, proportionality, and the principle of distinction, illustrating how even dual-use infrastructure like power plants or bridges can only be targeted under strict conditions. The guests also critique Israel’s conduct in Gaza and Lebanon, particularly the targeting of medical personnel and the use of forced displacement, arguing these actions may constitute war crimes. Despite a two-week ceasefire, both experts express skepticism about its strategic value, warning that Iran appears emboldened and that the U.S. has not achieved lasting security gains. The episode concludes with a sobering reflection on the limitations of international law enforcement, emphasizing the importance of training, moral leadership, and long-term legitimacy over immediate punishment.
Rhetoric from world leaders, such as threats to destroy entire civilizations, can constitute war crimes under international law by threatening indiscriminate attacks and spreading terror.
Under the law of war, civilian infrastructure like power plants and bridges can only be targeted if they provide a 'definite military advantage' and are used for military purposes—this requires rigorous, intelligence-based assessment.
The principle of proportionality requires that civilian harm not be 'excessive' compared to the concrete military advantage gained, and this test is easily undermined by existential rhetoric.
International law enforcement is limited, but long-term legitimacy and soft power—such as global outrage, weapon embargoes, and domestic protests—can constrain state behavior.
Even if a state achieves tactical military success, it does not equate to strategic victory; the U.S. and Israel have not achieved lasting peace or security in the region.
…and 3 more takeaways available in PodZeus
The Legacy of World War II and the Moral Weight of War Crimes
“If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals.”
Trump’s Rhetoric as a War Crime: Threatening Civilian Annihilation
“Those statements in and of themselves are criminal. They are criminal.”
The Legal Framework: Lawful Military Objectives and the Principle of Proportionality
Van Landingham explains the three-part legal test for targeting under international law: distinction, proportionality, and feasible precautions. She emphasizes that even dual-use infrastructure like power plants can only be targeted if they provide a 'definite military advantage' and if the harm to civilians is not excessive. The discussion highlights how Trump’s blanket threats violate the foundational principle of distinction.
The Ripple Effect: How Rhetoric Influences Battlefield Conduct
“The reverberating effects of that rhetoric on actual tactical level decisions by service members, all the way from strategic to operational, but really the tactical level. Those reverberating effects cannot be ignored.”
Israel’s Conduct in Gaza and Lebanon: Double Tap Strikes and Forced Displacement
“Unless they are actually fighting, that's prohibited. Right and can amount to a war crime if intentional.”
“If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals.”
“Those statements in and of themselves are criminal. They are criminal.”
“The reverberating effects of that rhetoric on actual tactical level decisions by service members, all the way from strategic to operational, but really the tactical level. Those reverberating effects cannot be ignored.”
Host
Guests
Iran
place
Israel
place
President Trump
person
World War II
other
Department of Defense
organization
Hezbollah
organization
Geneva Conventions
other
Hamas
organization
Vietnam War
other
Robert McNamara
person
How Gaza and Zionism Are Dividing Synagogues
The Brian Lehrer Show • 41m • 3/31/2026
Meet the New NYC Health Commissioner
The Brian Lehrer Show • 28m • 3/31/2026
A 'People's History' of the Mets
The Brian Lehrer Show • 19m • 3/31/2026
The Women Leading the Farmworker Movement
The Brian Lehrer Show • 19m • 3/31/2026
Albany Budget Deadline Day
The Brian Lehrer Show • 13m • 4/1/2026
Get the full intelligence
Search transcripts, export clips, track mentions, and explore all topics from “International Law, War Crimes and the War In Iran” inside PodZeus.
Start discovering podcast insights today
Start with a 7-day trial and explore a growing catalog of popular podcasts. No credit card required.
No credit card required • 7-day trial • Cancel anytime
