CURRENT AFFAIRS
Trump threatens Iran's water and power plants. It wouldn't be the first time — and it would be a war crime.
July 2026
The facts
On July 8, 2026, the ceasefire reached between the United States and Iran on June 17 collapses — a memorandum of understanding that guaranteed free, toll-free passage through the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days, leaving it to Iran and Oman to jointly define the 'future administration of maritime services' beyond that period, a clause that leaves the possibility of future tolls open and contested. Within that free-passage window, on July 6-7 the IRGC struck three commercial vessels in Omani waters — the Qatari LNG tanker Al Rekayyat, the Saudi tanker Wedyan, and the Cyprus Prosperity — for failing to follow a route Iran claims the right to unilaterally approve. Lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi announced legislation to formalize Iranian management of the strait, declaring that any arrangement without Tehran's coordination is 'doomed to fail': a declared strategy, not an isolated act. The attacks took place on the fifth day of funeral processions for Supreme Leader Khamenei — marked by crowds explicitly calling for revenge against Trump, and by turnout perceived domestically as disappointing; showing resolve over the strait also serves an internal cohesion function for a weakened leadership. A US official called it a 'gross violation' of the memorandum; Riyadh called it 'an assault on the security of international navigation.' The US responded with strikes on over 80 targets, including an attack on Kharg Island; Iran struck US installations in Bahrain and Kuwait. In Ankara, Trump confirmed the strike on Kharg ('Maybe we'll take over the island'), threatened desalination plants ('we'll take them out if we have to') and a naval blockade, called the Iranian leadership 'scum,' and on the truce: 'For me, I think it's over.'
Legal commentary
Deliberately striking desalination plants and civilian power grids means striking objects indispensable to the survival of the population, protected under Art. 54 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions: the laws of war allow striking dual-use infrastructure only when the military advantage clearly outweighs civilian harm — a very high bar. This is not the first time Trump has made this exact threat: in late March 2026 he spoke of 'completely obliterating' Iranian power plants, oil wells, and desalination plants, only to back off when negotiations seemed to progress. Asked then about the risk of a war crime, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt replied that the administration would 'always act within the confines of the law,' while confirming Trump would proceed 'unabated' — without explaining how striking desalination plants would serve that goal.
Implications — the symmetry test
The principle at stake here — civilian infrastructure indispensable to the population's survival is not to be struck, regardless of who threatens to do so — is the same one this site applies to any other wartime actor targeting civilian water or power grids. It does not change because it is spoken by the president of the power leading the Atlantic Alliance. But the symmetry must be completed: the Iranian attack on the ships was not random, but punishment for failing to follow a 'safe route' Iran claims the right to impose unilaterally, within the free, toll-free passage window the June agreement guaranteed for 60 days. Striking third-country merchant ships (Qatar, Saudi Arabia) to enforce it is not an application of the current agreement: it is a violation of it. Neither side comes out of this clean, and neither deserves to be presented as the one resisting the other's abuse: Iran here is pursuing its own strategic interest — control of a strait through which a fifth of the world's oil passes — by means that strike third-country civilians, not a principle of resistance.
Escalation, July 13, 2026
Five days after the threat to desalination plants, the crisis reaches a new formal threshold. On July 13, 2026, Trump announced on Truth Social the reinstatement of the naval blockade — "THE IRANIAN BLOCKADE," stressing it would only stop Iranian ships and customers — effective 20:00 GMT Tuesday the 14th, confirmed by CENTCOM. In the same post, the United States declared itself "GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT" and announced a 20% toll on the cargo value of any third-country vessel in transit, justified as reimbursement for security costs.
The announcement follows a new exchange of attacks over the weekend of July 11-12, further eroding the June 17 truce — the same one that explicitly banned tolls on passage through the strait. According to analytics firm Kpler, actual transits have fallen by more than half compared to the previous week; Brent crude has risen above $82 a barrel.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) stated it has always been consistent in opposing fees for passage through straits used for international navigation, saying there is no legal basis for mandatory tolls on mere transit — a principle codified by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Part III on transit passage, and by GATT Article V on freedom of transit. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi responded by claiming that "Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER" — disputing not the principle of a toll, but the percentage ("20% is of course too much"). A month earlier, US Secretary of State Rubio had stated that no country may charge tolls on an international waterway, calling it settled international law.
Symmetry test — update
The condemnation holds for both actors. The June truce explicitly barred Tehran from the same conduct Araghchi now claims in words; Washington denied it in words through Rubio and enacted it in fact five weeks later. Neither side can be presented as the one defending a principle: both assert it when convenient and abandon it when more convenient still.
Related opinion piece: It's Not the Strait. It's the Example. — N3R1-70's editorial on the erosion of international values this episode makes visible.
Sources (July 13 update): CNBC · Al Jazeera · CBS News · NPR · CNN Business · MS NOW
Sources: The Week · Washington Examiner · The Hill · CBC News · Al Jazeera · NPR · CNN