more war crimes of which the empire seems to be proud as we attack civilian assets; 

 

From Grok:

Enemy oil tankers start as civilian objects. They become lawful military objectives only if they make an effective contribution to military action and destroying them offers a definite military advantage. The United States treats “war-sustaining” assets—oil exports that finance Iran’s war effort—as meeting that test. Many other states and the San Remo Manual take a narrower view: mere revenue generation is too remote, so ordinary commercial tankers remain protected unless they carry military cargo, act as auxiliaries, resist visit-and-search, or otherwise directly support operations.

Calling the ships “defenseless civilians” therefore does not settle the question. Under U.S. doctrine they can be captured as prize or, in some circumstances, attacked. Whether any specific strike would still violate distinction, proportionality, or precautions depends on the facts at the time—not on Hegseth’s public warning alone. Davis is right that the policy is aggressive and risks escalation; he is not right that it is automatically a war crime.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It seems like a war crime to me. Both sides are doing it. I would not want Grok being a judge in a court of law deciding this case.

The bottom line is that the Iranian Military Action by Trump is escalating. When the oil stops greasing the wheels of commerce, industrial production and distribution of base compounds, WWIII will be the only option left.

..........more...........