The 1977 Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibits attacks on "objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population," including drinking water installations and irrigation works. Even for states that have not ratified the protocol, the prohibition has been widely recognized as part of customary international law binding on all parties to armed conflict.

To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. The current crisis has its roots in Trump's first-term withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018, a move that collapsed the multilateral framework that had constrained Iran's nuclear program. The subsequent "maximum pressure" campaign of sanctions failed to bring Tehran back to negotiations, instead pushing the country to enrich uranium to near-weapons-grade levels.

The European Union issued a carefully worded statement Sunday expressing "concern" over reports of threats to civilian infrastructure, though it stopped short of directly criticizing the US president. Josep Borrell, the EU's foreign policy chief, called on "all parties to respect international humanitarian law" and urged renewed diplomacy.

Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded via state media, calling Trump's threat "genocidal" and vowing that any attack on water infrastructure would be met with retaliation against oil facilities throughout the Persian Gulf.

The International Committee of the Red Cross declined to comment directly on Trump's statement but referred reporters to its long-standing position that attacks causing excessive civilian harm are prohibited under all circumstances.

As negotiations continue in Islamabad, military analysts note that Iran's water infrastructure is already under severe stress from years of drought and mismanagement. Any attack would likely trigger a humanitarian catastrophe affecting tens of millions of civilians, potentially displacing populations on a scale not seen in the region since the Syria civil war.

The threat also raises questions about the role of Pakistan as mediator. Islamabad has maintained close ties with both Washington and Tehran, but sources suggest Pakistani officials are increasingly concerned that their capital has become the venue for what one diplomat called "negotiations in name only."

Russia Expels British Diplomat on Espionage Charges, Continuing Spy War Escalation

4 hours ago