WASHINGTON - eTradeWire -- Many critics are arguing that striking civilian targets in Iran - such as its bridges and power plants, as President Trump has threatened to do - would constitute war crimes.

But striking civilian - as contrasted with strictly military - targets may be justified, and not constitute war crimes, because of the doctrines permitting effective self defense and a proportionate response (proportionality), suggests public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

Iran could hardly claim to be the victim of war crimes if its civilian facilities are attacked when it has itself carried out many successful attacks on civilian facilities of other countries, suggests Banzhaf.

The right of self defense - whether for individuals or countries - includes the right to defend ones self effectively, and to retaliate proportionately.

So if Iran targets civilian facilities, it cannot demand protection for an equal proportionate response, says the law professor.

If two men agree to a fist fight, but one pulls out a knife, his opponent is certainly justified in pulling out a knife of his own, since being forced to use only his fists against a knife if both unfair and foolhardy, argues Banzhaf.

More on eTradeWire News

• RCMP Fitness Expert Warns Applicants Against Late-Stage Overtraining Ahead of PFA
• Boardsy Launches Custom LED Standing Light Box for UK Exhibitions, Events and Retail Markets
• Chicago Afternoon Tea Society Presents a Juneteenth Hibiscus Tea Tasting
• Adams Plumbing & Heating Launches New Service Page for Golden, Colorado
• South Florida Business Trade Expo

The well known adage - "don't bring a knife to a gunfight" - encapsulates this common sense analysis.  If a person is attacked by someone with a gun, he is not limited - in law or logic - to trying to defend himself with only with a knife, and not using a gun if it is available in your holster.

Similarly, if Iran continues to strike civilian targets in other countries - and especially in countries which have not attacked it at all - those seeking to put an end to hostilities may be forced to do the same to the unlawful aggressor.

Otherwise, if limited to striking only military target in Iran - which are reportedly becoming increasingly scarce - the U.S. would be forced to fight with one hand tied behind its back, and that's clearly unfair and unreasonable, says Banzhaf.

JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law Emeritus
George Washington University Law School
"The Man Behind The Ban on Cigarette Commercials"
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Creator of the "Banzhaf Index"
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH),
(703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf