US-Iran peace deal remains elusive as choice of US targets draws legal questions | First Thing

Trump claims strikes called off as deal is close, but Tehran denies agreement near, while legal experts question if US targets may be a war crime. Plus 20 years of Taylor Swift’s incredible influence on pop culture

Good morning. Yesterday, Donald Trump spent the day promising he was going to hit Iran harder than ever before, then announced – again – that the US and Iran were close to signing a deal. Iran’s foreign ministry dismissed the claim, and Tasnim, the semi-official Iranian news agency, wrote that “until a potential understanding is announced by Iran, any news from Trump on this matter should be dismissed”.

The Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson, Esmail Baghaei, said large parts of the text under negotiation had been finalised but Iran would not compromise on its red lines. Two days of escalating attacks between the warring nations had threatened to collapse the fragile ceasefire.

What is the issue around the US choice of targets in Iran? Military strikes on 10 June that damaged two water storage facilities in southern Iran may constitute a war crime, legal and military experts say. The attack on the Bemani district destroyed a key reservoir serving about 20,000 people, raising critical legal questions over whether the strike hit a valid military objective or unlawfully targeted a civilian object.

Why is there a legal challenge to the method? The method has raised concerns for its apparent brutality. Eugene Smith, the first person to die by nitrogen hypoxia, thrashed and writhed on the gurney, according to witnesses. The last nitrogen execution, of Anthony Boyd, appeared to take more than 30 minutes as Boyd shuddered and gasped.

Continue reading...