Members of the military wait for President Donald Trump to arrive for a meeting convened by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, at Marine Corps Base Quantico, in Quantico, Virginia, September 30, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
President Donald Trump's alarming recent comments about the war in Iran have stoked widespread debate about his culpability for war crimes, but according to a retired lieutenant colonel who spoke to The Hill, the real concern at the moment for the military is having to carry out his "awful" orders that are not strictly illegal.
In a report published Wednesday morning, The Hill noted that Trump's "increasingly grave language" surrounding the Iran conflict "has alarmed legal experts, who say it’s a dangerous escalation that creates a permissive environment for civilian harm." Concerns are also mounting "over whether service members will be asked to carry out what amount to war crimes under the Geneva Convention."
Speaking with the outlet about the situation, Rachel VanLandingham, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and former judge advocate, said that the U.S. military is currently grappling with how to "translate" Trump's over-the-top threats into action, and warned that there is still considerable room within the accepted laws of war for terrible conduct that inflicts "a great deal" of harm onto civilians and infrastructure.
"The law of war allows for a great deal of civilian harm, a great deal of destruction, in particular, because the United States takes a more stretched view — it’s controversial — regarding what’s a lawful military objective in the first place," VanLandingham said.
She further explained that despite this leeway for "violence and destruction," military law still "tries to minimize it by engaging in checks and balances," as well as establishing a firm goal outside of wanton destruction for its own sake, something Trump and his administration have struggled to do. She also expressed major concerns about the degree to which the president is signaling that he finds civilian harm acceptable.
"It’s ensuring that you’re finding an actual military objective, not just going after every single bridge because it’s there,” VanLandingham explained. “You have to find that link, that connection to where’s the effective contribution to the military operations.”
She continued: "I fear that there’s a stretching effect because of this,” she told The Hill. “I believe our folks are very well trained, they’re not going to simply say, ‘Yes, sir, we’re going to bomb every power plant and every bridge,’ but . . . I fear that in doctrine that the United States has used before — but used in a more discreet manner — can be used in this kind of circumstance to find more targets to satisfy a presidential commander in chief’s intent, and that means more human or civilian suffering.”