Trump Would Be a War Criminal if He Does This? Clinton and Obama Already Did It [WATCH]

Commentator Jason Rantz addressed criticism surrounding U.S. military strikes targeting infrastructure in Iran, arguing that such actions align with established legal standards under international humanitarian law and reflect precedents set by prior administrations.

Rantz rejected claims that targeting bridges or power systems automatically constitutes a war crime.

“But you know, we’re hearing the whole is a war crime to target their bridges,” he said. “It’s a war crime to target their their power infrastructure. No, it’s not to be clear. It is not.”

He pointed to what he described as a foundational legal principle guiding such operations. “There is a core legal principle at play here,” Rantz said. “It’s called dual use targeting.”

Here’s What They’re Not Telling You About Your Retirement

According to Rantz, infrastructure that serves both civilian and military purposes can be lawfully targeted under specific conditions.

“In fact, we targeted a bridge just last week,” he said, adding that such infrastructure can be used “to transport missiles” and “to transport Iranian military equipment.”

He emphasized that international humanitarian law permits these actions if certain criteria are met. “We can absolutely target that under international humanitarian law,” Rantz said.

He added that the law is “very clear” when infrastructure provides “a genuine military advantage with minimal civilian harm.”

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

Rantz acknowledged that proportionality remains a point of discussion in evaluating military actions. “Now there’s an argument about disproportionality,” he said.

“This is the only time we talk about disproportionality arguments and say, okay, it kind of makes sense in this case, it does.”

He then referenced past U.S. military actions to illustrate his argument, beginning with the NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia in 1999 during the Clinton administration.

“But just go back not too long ago,” Rantz said. “Go back to 1999 you know what happened in 1999 with the Clinton administration?”

He described the operation as “a 78 day NATO bombing of Yugoslavia” and noted the types of infrastructure targeted.

“The Clinton administration explicitly aimed,” Rantz said, citing language to “demolish, destroy, devastate, degrade, and ultimately eliminate the essential infrastructure of Serbia.”

Rantz listed examples of those targets, including “power plants, oil facilities, bridges, factories, water supplies.”

He then raised the question of how those actions were viewed at the time. “Was that a war crime?” he asked, before noting, “I don’t recall making the claim that Bill Clinton was a war criminal.”

He added that there was no widespread response labeling the operation as criminal. “I don’t recall any of the Democrats doing that,” Rantz said. “I don’t remember NATO having anything to say about that.”

Rantz also pointed to the role of international review bodies. “So let’s be clear,” he said. “This was even reviewed by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia.”

He noted that the tribunal “decided not to do open any kind of war crime investigation” and “accepted that the targets had legitimate military utility.”

Turning to more recent history, Rantz cited U.S. military operations against ISIS during the Obama administration between 2014 and 2016.

“What happened during 2014 to 2016 with the Obama administration,” he said, referencing “1000s of airstrikes against ISIS.”

He identified key targets during those operations. “What was targeted,” Rantz said, included “oil infrastructure.”

He added that U.S. forces also targeted “oil reserves, oil fields, pipelines, energy infrastructure.”

Rantz acknowledged that those targets also affected civilian populations. “Now, did that also serve civilian populations?” he asked. “Yeah, it did.” However, he noted, “no war crimes as a result of that.”

He argued that the same legal framework should apply to current actions involving Iran. “So all you have to do is apply that exact same standard to Iran,” Rantz said.

He described the targets as “a military supply route that’s sustaining the ballistic missiles that are being used against American forces, against our allies.”

Rantz said the justification mirrors prior decisions by past administrations. “That framing, just by itself, is the exact same justification that Clinton and Obama used,” he said.

He concluded by calling for consistent standards when evaluating military actions. “Now, could you have an honest conversation about the disproportionality of what the President saw?” Rantz said.

“Sure, I think that that’s fair.” He added that “it is responsible” to have that discussion, while criticizing what he described as premature conclusions. “They are pre determining war criminal status because they hate Donald Trump,” Rantz said. “They hate Donald.”

WATCH:

Warning: Account balances and purchasing power no longer tell the same story. Know in 2 minutes if your retirement is working for you.