President Donald Trump has issued a stark ultimatum: if Iran fails to reach an “acceptable” agreement with the US and Israel by Tuesday night, he pledges to target vital **Iran infrastructure**. His ominous promise to bomb the nation “back to the Stone Ages” included specific threats against bridges and power plants, alongside a chilling social media declaration that “a whole civilization will die tonight” without a deal.
Indeed, a flurry of verified US and Israeli assaults has already crippled infrastructure critical to the daily lives of ordinary Iranians. Over the past two weeks, BBC Verify has confirmed strikes on at least two steel plants, three bridges, and a pharmaceutical facility, with schools and hospitals also sustaining damage. These escalating attacks have ignited a fierce debate among senior US Democrats and UN officials, many of whom warn such actions could constitute war crimes. Yet, at a recent news conference, President Trump summarily dismissed these profound international concerns.
Civilian Toll on Iran Infrastructure
The destructive breadth of these operations is alarming. Just last Thursday, a US aerial assault on a bridge under construction in the central city of Karaj tragically claimed at least 13 lives. Verified footage, widely shared by Trump himself, showcased the bridge’s dramatic collapse, rendering it irrevocably unusable. “The biggest bridge in Iran comes tumbling down, never to be used again,” he boasted online, hinting at further devastation.
Economically vital steel production facilities have not been spared. On March 27, smoke billowed from Isfahan Mobarakeh Steel, Iran’s largest producer, forcing a complete halt to operations. Satellite imagery also confirms significant damage to the Khuzestan Steel Company, the nation’s second-largest manufacturer, with local officials estimating repair times of up to a year. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims these strikes have decimated nearly 70% of Iran’s steel manufacturing capacity. Arman Mahmoudian, a research fellow at the University of South Florida’s Global and National Security Institute, underscores the grave implications: “Steel is a cornerstone of Iran’s non-oil economic capacity,” he stated. Such damage, he warns, could jeopardize 20 million tons of output and impact 3-3.5% of the nation’s GDP.
The pharmaceutical sector, though smaller, faces equally critical blows. On March 31, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reportedly struck Tofigh Daru Research & Engineering Company, a major producer of essential anesthetic and cancer drugs. The IDF alleged the company was involved in transferring “chemical substances, including fentanyl, that were used for research and development of chemical weapons”—a claim BBC Verify has not independently corroborated. Mahmoudian cautions that attacks on this industry could severely undermine international humanitarian law and medical independence, particularly in a country where over 90% of pharmaceuticals are purportedly produced domestically.
The campaign has also targeted the very fabric of Iranian society. Verified footage and photographs reveal extensive damage to educational institutions, including Shahid Beheshti University and Sharif University of Technology in Tehran. Even religious sites have become casualties, such as the Husseinya Mosque in Zanjan, where an attack killed two people and destroyed a clinic and library within the complex. Railways, crucial for transport and trade, have also been hit, with the IDF confirming it bombed ten “key” sections of the Iranian network. A railway worker in Tehran, speaking anonymously, expressed deep frustration: “I’m really angry… Everything is falling apart.” The IDF had issued a warning to civilians ahead of the strikes, urging them to avoid trains and railway lines due to the clear danger.
The War Crimes Quandary
The repeated targeting of **Iran infrastructure** and civilian sites has reignited serious questions about potential war crimes. Legal experts, along with some US and UN officials, point to international law, which permits strikes on civilian sites only under limited circumstances, specifically when they offer a “definite military advantage” and do not cause “excessive” harm to civilians. Professor Rachel VanLandingham, a former US military lawyer, stressed this nuanced but critical distinction to BBC Verify.
While Acled, an independent conflict monitor, suggests civilian harm has mostly clustered around military or state-linked sites, rather than indiscriminate bombardment, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric and human rights chief Volker Turk unequivocally warned that “deliberately attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure is a war crime” and those responsible would be held accountable. Sir Geoffrey Nice, a former prosecutor at The Hague, echoed these sentiments, suggesting attacks on vital infrastructure like power and water facilities could be disproportionate under international law, risking “completely disproportionate damage, ultimately including by starvation and disease.” Despite these grave warnings, President Trump dismissed such concerns, controversially stating that the true “war crime is allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
About the Author
