War crimes are not allowed under international law as part of a tit-for-tat.
There is some nuance here, where some war crimes could make what would normally be a warcrime by the other side not a war crime. For instance, it is a war crime to attack medics, and it is a warcrime for combatants to pose as medics. However, if a country commits the warcrime of having combatants pose as medics, it is no longer a warcrime to attack that countries medics.
From a purely strategic perspective wouldn't the US be better off saying "no more attacks on shipping or we destroy Karg island entirely"?
Karg:
is a legit military target.
doesn't contain any civilian housing etc.
would cripple all IRGC income if destroyed.
would reverse any pragmatic incentive China has to side with Iran at all. If the realistic possibility of getting oil from Iran itself drops to zero, Chinas incentive flips to simply getting and keeping the straight open to all shipping.
A) That is even more escalatory, and will lead Iran attacking more oil infrastructure in the region.
B) We can only destroy Karg Island once
C) The US had demonstrated an ability to block Iranian exports by navel power, which can be turned on and off as needed.
D) If destructive dominance were enough to win the war, the US would have one it long ago. Just like they would have won in Afghanistan
Iran views this war as existential, and the Strait as their most significant national defense asset. They are not going to give it up over concerns about oil revenue.
12 Comments
Waterpumpee@lemmus.org · 15 pts · 21d
Noob question: are war crimes ok if its tit for tat or is he really wanted by hague now?
Jhex@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 21d
Why do you think the USA wants to dismantle the ICC?
homura1650@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 21d
War crimes are not allowed under international law as part of a tit-for-tat.
There is some nuance here, where some war crimes could make what would normally be a warcrime by the other side not a war crime. For instance, it is a war crime to attack medics, and it is a warcrime for combatants to pose as medics. However, if a country commits the warcrime of having combatants pose as medics, it is no longer a warcrime to attack that countries medics.
Steve@startrek.website · -2 pts · 21d
Is it a war crime to forget to mention the trump-epstein files?
cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au · 5 pts · 21d
Oh the Americans and Jewish™ Nazis never signed up for the ICC. Out of bounds. Not under their jurisdiction.
Checkmate,
liberalshumanitarians.DarkFuture@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 21d
Yo pedo. They're religious fanatics that hate America.
They. Don't. Care.
tidderuuf@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 21d
Russia and China right now: "Stop! My penis can only get so erect!"
mctoasterson@reddthat.com · 3 pts · 21d
From a purely strategic perspective wouldn't the US be better off saying "no more attacks on shipping or we destroy Karg island entirely"?
Karg:
homura1650@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 21d
A) That is even more escalatory, and will lead Iran attacking more oil infrastructure in the region.
B) We can only destroy Karg Island once
C) The US had demonstrated an ability to block Iranian exports by navel power, which can be turned on and off as needed.
D) If destructive dominance were enough to win the war, the US would have one it long ago. Just like they would have won in Afghanistan
Iran views this war as existential, and the Strait as their most significant national defense asset. They are not going to give it up over concerns about oil revenue.
cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au · 1 pts · 21d
These guys wish they had that kind of navel power. They don't. Have you seen how much they drink?
cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au · 6 pts · 21d
From a purely strategic perspective literally every move they've made is profoundly stupid
phutatorius@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 15d
Attacking civilian infrastructure is a war crime.
The US is obligated to prosecute Trump and any of his appointees involved in this decision.