Iran hasn't ratified it and is not a party to that agreement. You can't really fault a country for not complying with an extraterritorial law made by and for other countries.
You see, they have not ratified or withdrawn from the Rome treaty, which is the only UN treaty that talks about war crimes.
What I'm saying, if countries just get to opt out of treaties, where that affects a great deal of other countries (like here, in Iran's case), and that just lets them off the hook, then you can just close up the UN and start WW3 right now. Because that just became unavoidable.
(historically people use "war crimes" for Geneva convention violations too, but those can only be presented to the UNSC, and with China and Iran blocking everything, nothing will ever be accepted there. So if those are warcrimes, that's a purely theoretical thing only)
War crimes is a funny example to choose. It just happens that post WWII, the west has been impermeable with its expensive high-tech militaries so it could comfortably set a high moral standard for itself and then judge poorer countries by that same standard. For example, Palestinians commit war crimes all the time because they don't have the conventional military capability of fighting to the west's moral standards. I suppose in your view, they should just admit they're losers and take whatever happens to them, but people love to fight for the part of the Earth they feel they have exclusive rights to and no amount of labelling something a crime is going to get in the way of that.
Their point wasn't about accepting it or not, it was about Iran not being bound by the terms of a treaty they've never ratified. And of course that applies to any state and any treaty.
War crime is something of a different case also because it's a term which exists separately in the popular lexicon and isn't used solely to mean "not in keeping with the terms of the UNSC."
Your comment also seems to be an example of whataboutery. It might be worth considering what prompted that.
This means getting goods from other countries without paying tax to half the countries in between is no longer possible. It means no more business for any gulf country without paying Iran. It means no more business between EU and Asia without paying Spain and Morocco. It means ... Half the world's wars have been fought over that and the "way out" has been: as long as you use the seas, you get to do that, for free.
You see the problem, I hope?
Yes I get it, we all hate Trump, and this is "showing Trump" (not really, of all countries, the US is one of the least affected by this. This is especially horrible for Europe, especially specific European countries, most of Asia, most of South America and Russia)
Back to wars it is, I guess. This will rapidly deteriorate to the point where a great many countries are effectively unable to trade internationally.
Could you point to where I said this?
That international custom is breaking and the power openly and proudly breaking it does not get to pearl clutch when someone else does it too.
Whether Iran looses or wins, the nice cooperative days are kind of gone.