There are millions of civilians across the Persian Gulf region who face potential displacement, injury, or death if this conflict escalates. The Geneva Conventions, particularly Convention IV relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, explicitly prohibit attacks on civilian objects and require parties to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Is this principle being followed when power plants are threatened as targets?

The stakes described - disruption of global oil flows and energy security - translate directly into human costs. When economies falter, people lose livelihoods, children go hungry, and medical systems collapse. This is not abstract economic calculation; it is the predictable consequence of decisions made in boardrooms and government chambers far from the populations who will bear the burden.

The contested nature of whether the Strait is currently closed reveals a dangerous pattern: when facts are unclear, humanitarian assessments become impossible. At Solferino, I saw thirty thousand wounded because no one had bothered to count them beforehand. Today, we have the capacity to monitor and verify, yet we still proceed as if numbers don’t matter. The wounded cannot be treated if we don’t know where they are.

What rules apply here? The fundamental principle of distinction is clear: civilian objects, including power plants providing electricity to hospitals and water treatment facilities, cannot be targeted as reprisals. The principle of proportionality requires that any anticipated military advantage must outweigh the expected civilian harm. And the duty to take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian casualties applies regardless of who started the confrontation.

Institutional capacity in the region is already strained by existing conflicts. The ICRC and other humanitarian organizations would face significant challenges accessing affected populations, particularly if hostilities disrupt transportation and communication networks. Medical facilities would be overwhelmed by casualties, and displaced populations would lack basic necessities.

The most dangerous aspect of this ultimatum is its artificial timeline. Forty-eight hours is insufficient for any meaningful assessment of civilian presence or evacuation. It treats human lives as variables in a political equation rather than as beings entitled to protection regardless of their location or nationality.

When I founded the Red Cross, I understood that institutions cannot prevent war, but they can limit what war does to people. The question before us is not whether Iran can reopen the Strait - that is a matter of political will - but whether we will apply the rules that exist to protect those caught in the crossfire. The conventions were signed for moments exactly like this: when political leaders forget that behind every ultimatum are real people who will bleed and die.

What this means for you: When leaders speak of strategic objectives, ask who will count the wounded. When they mention economic interests, ask who will feed the displaced. When they invoke national security, ask who will protect the hospitals. The rules exist not because leaders are virtuous, but because when they are not, someone must be able to say: “This is not permitted. This is a violation. This must be documented.”