Trump's Iran Ultimatum (w/ Margaret Donovan) | Command Post

Civilian power plants are typically 'Category 1 no-strike facilities' with protected status under DoD policy and international law. They can only lose this status if their nature, location, purpose, or use contributes to the enemy's military action or if their destruction offers a definite military advantage. Targeting them solely for economic reasons, like lowering gas prices, is not a legitimate military objective and would violate the laws of armed conflict.

Margaret Donovan, a military lawyer, states that Trump's threat to 'obliterate' power plants for economic reasons would likely fail all four principles of armed conflict: military necessity, proportionality, distinction, and avoiding unnecessary suffering.

Executing a widespread strike against all power generation facilities in a country like Iran within a 48-hour ultimatum is militarily impossible. Such an operation requires extensive assessment of each target, potential collateral damage, civilian workers, and the overall effects beyond just destroying the building. It also demands significant military capabilities and resource allocation that cannot be rapidly re-tasked.

General Mark Hurtling describes the impossibility of such a rapid strike, noting the need for target assessment, collateral damage analysis, and the vast capabilities required, which exceed what the Air Force and Navy could deploy on short notice. He also mentions the 'trooptotask relationship' where sudden mission changes cause 'task overload'.

A direct order from the Commander-in-Chief, if perceived as unlawful, places military officers in an extremely difficult position. Orders are generally assumed lawful, but officers are obligated to determine if an order is unlawful and, if so, to disobey it. The stakes are immense, with personal and professional consequences, including legal liability for those who execute unlawful commands.

Margaret Donovan states, 'Nobody knows what who is calling the shots, what he means... But as the commander-in-chief in that role, if that is the status from which you are making that statement, in any other world, that would be an order.' General Hurtling adds that it's 'the most difficult position any officer that's commanding a unit can be in because the stakes are immense... There's no just following orders.'

International treaties and agreements, such as NATO, the Geneva Conventions, and the UN Charter, are not merely 'breezy concepts' but are signed and ratified by Congress, making them binding domestic law in the United States. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, treaties hold the same legal footing as the Constitution itself and statutes passed by Congress.

Margaret Donovan emphasizes, 'NATO, the Geneva Conventions, the UN charter, all of those agreements have been signed and ratified by Congress. And so that means that they actually are domestic law. They're not just floating in the wind somewhere.'

The 'command climate' set by top leadership significantly influences military conduct. When a Secretary of Defense or other senior leaders express disregard for rules of engagement or legal frameworks, it can embolden some personnel to ignore established protocols, potentially leading to unlawful actions and severe consequences for those involved.

General Hurtling explains, 'the command climate emanates from the top... certainly there are people who are emboldened when they hear the secretary of defense say things like this.' He cites an incident where a brigade commander was relieved and soldiers court-martialed for violating rules of engagement after misinterpreting orders.