The Jungle Has Grown Back. How the US-Iran War is Shattering the Rules of Global Combat

The escalating US-Israel-Iran war is shattering global combat norms. Learn how attacks on energy grids and unprecedented threats are upending international law.

The unspoken boundaries that have governed international warfare for decades are disintegrating. As the military confrontation involving the United States, Israel, and Iran intensifies, a disturbing new strategy has taken center stage: the systematic targeting of civilian energy infrastructure.

From raging fires at petroleum reserves to ultimatums promising the destruction of power grids, the escalating conflict is severely testing the global rules-based order, leaving legal experts and diplomats warning of a dangerous new era in modern warfare.

A Region’s Power Grid in the Crosshairs

The physical toll of this shifting battlefield is already immense. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), at least 40 critical energy facilities across nine different nations have suffered severe damage since hostilities began.

Israeli aerial assaults have ignited massive fuel depots around Tehran, sending colossal fireballs and dark smoke into the sky. In a sweeping campaign of retaliation, Iranian forces have struck energy sites across Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel.

The collateral risks are terrifyingly high. The World Health Organization recently pleaded for military restraint, noting the situation has reached a "perilous stage" after ballistic projectiles struck alarmingly close to nuclear complexes in both Israel and Iran.

Ultimatums and Crimes of Aggression

At the heart of the controversy are increasingly severe threats from Washington. President Donald Trump has repeatedly floated the use of overwhelming military might against Iran's vital utilities. Following Iranian strikes on Qatari energy assets, Trump vowed to "massively blow up" the colossal South Pars gas field. Days later, he escalated his rhetoric further, threatening to "obliterate" Iran’s largest power generation plants if Tehran refused to unblock the Strait of Hormuz.

On Monday, Trump announced a five-day pause on these strikes, citing ongoing negotiations with Tehran—a claim Iranian officials promptly and firmly denied.

These tactics have sparked intense backlash from international legal scholars. Luis Moreno Ocampo, the foundational chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC), argues that these military campaigns—by all involved parties—cross a dark legal threshold.

Ocampo characterized the overarching conflict as a "crime of aggression," defining it as the unlawful use of armed force against another sovereign nation's territorial integrity. He directly compared the planned US strikes on Iranian infrastructure, as well as the reciprocal energy-grid attacks by Iran and Israel, to Russia’s heavily penalized bombardment of the Ukrainian power grid.

"Now we go to the rule of the man, whatever today President Trump decides will be the rule. That's not a viable world," Ocampo cautioned, noting that similar standards apply to US actions in Venezuela.

Former State Department legal advisor Brian Finucane echoed this alarm, stating that Washington appears willing to strike locations that are clearly not lawful military objectives. Under the Rome Statute, intentionally bombing non-military civilian targets is classified as a war crime. Even if civilian sites are repurposed for military use, commanders are still bound by international humanitarian law to differentiate between combatants and everyday citizens.

The Humanitarian Fallout

Human rights organizations are sounding the alarm over the catastrophic civilian consequences of these targeted strikes. Iran is currently battling crippling blackouts; destroying the nation's remaining power stations would cripple municipal water pumps, cutting off basic hydration to millions of homes.

Tehran has weaponized this vulnerability in return, warning that any American strike on its power grid will trigger immediate, devastating attacks on the water purification and electricity systems of its Gulf neighbors. Ocampo was quick to note that Iran’s unprovoked strikes on these neighboring Gulf nations similarly qualify as international crimes of aggression.

Washington’s Defense: Targeting a "Terrorist Regime"

The White House has fiercely pushed back against accusations of illegality, dismissing Ocampo’s legal assessments as "ridiculous." Administration officials argue the President is executing necessary, bold maneuvers to neutralize a rogue state responsible for regional civilian casualties.

Mike Waltz, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, defended the targeting of Iranian utilities during a Sunday CBS News interview. Waltz argued that because the Iranian regime heavily controls critical infrastructure to oppress its citizens, assault neighboring countries, and aggressively pursue nuclear arms in defiance of UN sanctions, those facilities become "legitimate targets."

Another White House representative praised the administration for reestablishing American dominance, claiming previous presidents spent 47 years merely talking about the Iranian threat while allowing the regime's destructive power to flourish under the status quo.

(It is worth noting that Iran, Israel, and the US are all non-members of the ICC. Furthermore, the current US administration previously penalized several ICC judges with sanctions over inquiries into American and Israeli military operations).

The Rise of Thugboat Diplomacy

While the UN Security Council has formally denounced Tehran's aggression against Gulf states, geopolitical analysts warn that Western condemnations ring hollow when the US appears to flout international norms simultaneously.

Brian Katulis, a veteran national security official spanning multiple administrations, observed that the unwritten laws of global engagement are collapsing. By threatening energy grids and operating outside traditional frameworks in places like Iran and Venezuela, Washington is signaling to the globe that "you can do as you please."

"The jungle has grown back," Katulis remarked, noting that these actions are accelerating a dangerous undercurrent in global politics. He branded this new era as "thugboat diplomacy," arguing that Trump’s failure to assemble an international coalition to defend the Strait of Hormuz is the direct consequence of alienated allies losing faith in American leadership.