AMNA NAWAZ: For perspective now on# President Trump's talk about bombing## all of Iran's bridges and power plants and# whether that's legal under international law,## we turn to retired Lieutenant# Colonel Rachel VanLandingham.## She spent 20 years in the Air Force and is# now a professor at Southwestern Law School.

Welcome back to the show.

You heard in our reporting there the repeated# .. infrastructure.

He said specifically there's a# plan to decimate every bridge in Iran, to destroy## every power plant.

You have heard the concerns,# Colonel, about this potentially being a war crime.

Based on your expertise, is it?

LT.

COL.

RACHEL VANLANDINGHAM (RET.

), Southwestern# Law School: He's both threatening a war crime and## he's engaging in a war crime through that# rhetoric itself.

And I will explain that.

First of all, the law of war, that's not# just international law.

It's U.S.

law.

And## our military members are deeply# trained and steeped in this law.## The law of war prohibits measures of intimidation# against a civilian population, including threats## of violence whose primary purpose is to sow# terror amongst that civilian population.

Those civilians whose electricity ensures that# there's refrigeration for their medicine for those## that are dependent on refrigerated medicine,# that provides electricity to hospitals,## where there are lifesaving operations# ongoing, where babies are being born,## whose electricity is helping ensure that the# water is purified and clean, they are terrified.

It's reasonably foreseeable to believe# that such rhetoric will sow terror amongst## the civilian population, and, therefore,# one can infer that that's what President## Trump intends.

So he's committing a# war crime just through that language.

Second of all, he's threatening to make our# military engage in war crimes and therefore## stain their honor and their soul and# come back with moral injury.

Why?## Because threatening to destroy every# bridge and every single power plant## in the entire state of Iran is called an# indiscriminate attack.

That is a war crime.

Why?

Because the law of war says we# don't engage in total war for anymore.## We don't believe that children are the enemy and# that civilians are the enemy.

The law of war says,## look, we're going to divide the battlefield,# which in modern days is often a city like Tehran,## into civilian objects, and they're protected,# and civilian people, they're protected.

And then there's military targets, lawful military# objectives that make an effective contribution## to military action and whose destruction provides# a definite military advantage.

We divide the world## into those two camps.

By saying we're just going# to bomb everything, bomb every single bridge,## every single power plant that serves civilians,# that is threatening indiscriminate attack.

And it is one of the most# horrible war crimes there are## because it brings us back, straight back# down the slippery slope to total warfare.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, Colonel, let me ask you, if I# may, if the military and their lawyers can argue## that, yes, the power plants provide electricity# to civilians and they use these bridges,## but that the regime also gets electricity from# these power plants, that these same bridges## are used by members of the Iranian military# forces, does that justify making them targets?

LT.

COL.

RACHEL VANLANDINGHAM (RET.

): You have# to make an individual case-by-case analysis of## each bridge and every power plant that is being# considered to be a lawful military objective,## because, first of all, just saying, by# its use or intended use, has to make an## effective contribution to military action, not# the regime in general, but to military action.

Second -- and so a bridge, therefore, like# the bridge that was destroyed last week,## a bridge could make an effective contribution# to military action because it's being used as## a resupply line.

Logistical lines are often a# legitimate lawful military objectives in war,## despite the fact that they# also have a civilian use.

Their destruction at the time has to# provide a definite military advantage,## but that's not the end of the analysis.

The# law of war goes even further to say, OK,## once you have determined that there's# some kind of military connection here,## there's a connection to military action,# and this destruction or disablement## will produce a military advantage, then you# have to look at, will civilians be harmed?

And, of course, by taking out power plants that# are civilian in nature, civilians will be harmed,## because civilian power plants provide# civilians electricity to their homes,## to water purification plants, to# hospitals, you name it, right?

This is why the United States strongly condemned# Russia and our State Department concluded that## Russia was engaged in war crimes of indiscriminate# attacks because it was taking out power plants,## electrical infrastructure in Ukraine# during the dead of winter, in which## Ukrainians were plunged into life-threatening# cold without the definite military advantage.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Colonel... LT.

COL.

RACHEL VANLANDINGHAM.. AMNA NAWAZ: If I may, let me just# ask you .. in time -- we have a minute or so# left -- what would your advice be## to U.S.

military commanders if they receive these# kinds of orders?

What's your message to them?

LT.

COL.

RACHEL VANLANDINGHAM (RET.

): Follow your# oath to the Constitution and to the law.

Follow,## trust your training.

Ensure that there's# discrete analysis done on every single## power plant that's on a targeting list,# on every single bridge to ensure that,## not only it's a lawful military objective, but# that proportionality, that the harm to civilians,## right, is not excessive compared to the direct# and concrete military advantage to be gained.

And that means that most of these# indeed will not pass that test.## And that's what our military professionals# are trained on.

And I really hope they go## back to that training and that they're# taking these threats of war crimes## given by the commander in chief and filtering# them through their own training and their## own conscience and their own legal# obligation to follow the law of war.

Because these are war crimes that# they don't follow those steps.## And those war crimes do not# have a statute of limitations.## And many of our -- and it has universal# jurisdiction.

And so many of our allies## could -- if you want to travel to Europe,# ensure you don't get engaged in a war crime.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is retired# Lieutenant Colonel Rachel## VanLandingham joining us tonight.# Thank you so much for your time.

LT.

COL.

RACHEL VANLANDINGHAM (RET.

): Thank you.