WASHINGTON: The specter of a wider war has deepened after US President Donald Trump reiterated sweeping threats against Iran, even as he signaled cautious support for Pakistan’s mediation efforts to avert a full-scale conflict.
Speaking at a White House news conference on Monday, Trump repeated his familiar assertions about American military supremacy. “The entire country can be taken out in one night, and that night might be tomorrow night,” he said, outlining a scenario in which “every bridge in Iran will be decimated… every power plant… burning, exploding and never to be used again,” claiming reconstruction could take “100 years.”
The repeated threats have triggered alarm not only on Capitol Hill but also within American legal circles. More than 100 US-based international law scholars recently signed an open letter expressing concern that attacks on civilian infrastructure could violate the UN Charter and international humanitarian law, warning that sweeping strikes on bridges, power plants and other essential facilities raise serious questions under the laws of armed conflict.
The legal concerns now intersect with deep partisan divisions in Washington, where Democrats warn that the president’s threats could amount to war crimes, while many Republicans frame the rhetoric as strategic leverage and grant him broad latitude.
Some Democrats are also urging Republicans to call Congress back from recess to vote on a war powers resolution aimed at checking the president’s military actions.
Congressman Jason Crow, D-Col., told MS NOW it was time for “Americans of all stripes” to stand up and “condemn what the President is saying and say, ‘We will not tolerate it, and we will seek accountability if he moves forward with it.’”
Senator Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., warned that if the president’s threats are carried out, they would “violate the law of armed conflict as laid out in the Geneva Conventions.” Congressman Seth Moulton, D-Mass., a Marine veteran, accused Trump of “gleefully threatening to commit war crimes in Iran.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described the president as “ranting like an unhinged madman,” while Senator Chris Van Hollen posted that “targeting civilian infrastructure is a war crime & only solidifies the regime’s power.”
Progressive Democrat Yassamin Ansari, the first American Iranian elected to Congress, highlighted the human cost of escalation: “Sharif University is Iran’s MIT. They’ve produced a huge number of engineers who’ve gone on to Silicon Valley and founded some of the most successful American tech companies. Why are we bombing a university in a city of 10 million people?”
Republicans have largely framed the president’s rhetoric as strategic pressure rather than operational intent. Senator Joni Ernst, a veteran, defended the approach, saying “it’s an ongoing operation, and if he needs leverage, he’s using that leverage.” On the question of whether striking power plants and bridges would amount to war crimes, she added that the civilian resources in question are “being used by the military, there’s no doubt.”
Congressman Don Bacon, R-Neb., said he had “mixed feelings” on the issue, while Congressman Clay Higgins, R-La., urged Trump to “hit” the Iranians “harder than ever Mr. President.”
Even as he escalates threats, Trump acknowledged that diplomacy is ongoing. He described Iran as an “active, willing participant” in negotiations and said indirect talks through intermediaries are “going well.” Pakistan, along with Egypt and Turkey, is engaged in shuttle diplomacy, with Vice President JD Vance and special envoy Steve Witkoff coordinating the outreach.
The volatility on the ground underscores the risks of miscalculation. US General Caine, describing this week’s rescue mission, said: “Every Iranian who had a small gun was shooting at us.” The remark captures the combustible atmosphere in which sweeping threats and fragile diplomacy now coexist.
For Pakistan, disputes in Washington over legality and morality, have created a high-stakes environment in which the prospects for both war and peace remain finely balanced. Whether Islamabad’s efforts can convert this tenuous window into meaningful de-escalation may ultimately determine if the crisis spirals into a wider regional conflict or retreats from the brink.
