President Donald Trump escalated his threats against Iran on Tuesday, posting on Truth Social that “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” The statement drew immediate condemnation from Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired Navy captain, who said that “threatening to target power plants and other non-military targets is not strength.”
According to The Hill, Kelly made clear that if those words translated into orders to destroy civilian infrastructure without a valid military purpose, it would be hard to see how they wouldn’t violate the laws of armed conflict.
Kelly emphasized that America leads best with strength, discipline, and professionalism, and that illegal orders designed to make civilians suffer would leave a permanent mark on both the military and the country. This is not the first time Kelly has clashed with the administration on this issue. Late last year, he and several other Democratic lawmakers released a video advising military service members to refuse “illegal orders.”
Trump’s rhetoric is alarming military experts and retired officers who are calling it out as likely war crimes
Trump’s comments came ahead of a Tuesday deadline for Iran to agree to a deal. Even though a permanent deal could not be reached, the Iran and the U.S. agreed to a temporary ceasefire. The escalation began on Sunday with a post on social media where Trump pressed Tehran to “open the F—in’ Strait, you crazy bastards.”
On Monday, he threatened Iranian infrastructure directly, writing: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F—in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”
These statements come as the U.S. war against Iran enters its second month. The Strait of Hormuz, a crucial passage for the global oil industry, has been effectively closed since the conflict began. Trump’s willingness to openly discuss targeting non-military assets and entire populations has alarmed many military observers and retired officers.
The global reaction to Trump’s nuclear-level threat against an entire civilization has been one of widespread horror, with many calling for his removal from office. Aside from Kelly, many retired military officials have condemned Trump’s recent comments.
According to The Guardian, Retired Admiral Michael Smith, who once commanded a carrier strike group, voiced his concern, stating, “I have to hope that this is bluster, and a negotiating tactic on his part.” He strongly believes Trump must understand that such threats are, in themselves, likely war crimes.
While Smith acknowledged that earlier comments about bombing bridges and power plants might have had some military justification, he stressed that claiming to wipe out a “whole civilization” has no legal standing whatsoever, adding that “we have to have faith that the current military leaders will do what is legal.”
When asked by reporters at the White House on Monday whether he was concerned about committing possible war crimes, Trump simply replied, “not at all.” He reiterated his threat to destroy Iran’s bridges and power plants and refused to confirm whether civilian targets were off-limits.
Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), a former defense official, stated that targeting civilians en masse would be a clear violation of the law of armed conflict under the Geneva Conventions and the Pentagon’s Law of War Manual, putting service members in serious legal jeopardy.
Retired Army General Shawn Harris, now running for Congress, believes the threat to kill a “civilization” in a single day implies the use of nuclear weapons, even without explicitly mentioning them. He also noted how difficult it has become to separate Trump’s bluster from his actual intentions, saying that what Trump appears to be saying is that he will follow through on blowing up bridges and power facilities.
Naveed Shah, political director for the veterans group Common Defense and an Army veteran who served in Iraq, called Trump’s rhetoric “unhinged,” warning that it puts U.S. troops in the region in greater danger and risks dragging the country into another costly “forever war” in the Middle East.
The firing of three generals last week by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggests there may have been internal pushback from senior military leaders against Trump’s war plans. None of the officers forced into retirement have made public comments since. Some critics have pointed to Trump’s broader pattern of appointing war-hawk figures to key positions as a sign of where his administration’s intentions truly lie.
Gary Corn, a retired Army staff attorney who teaches national security law, noted that Congress has gradually given up its authority to declare war, and that failed efforts to rein in military actions can be read as “implicit acquiescence if not endorsement.” In early March, both the House and Senate narrowly rejected measures that would have required congressional approval for military operations against Iran.
Despite widespread alarm from experts and lawmakers, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly defended Trump, saying that “the President is using all of his constitutional and lawful authorities to protect our homeland from the short- and long-term threat posed by the terrorist Iranian regime.”
Published: Apr 8, 2026 07:13 am