WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday continued to threaten Iran with war crimes if it does not comply with his demands, even as he also insisted a ceasefire deal with the country’s new, “more reasonable” rulers was soon at hand.

“If for any reason a deal is not shortly reached, which it probably will be, and if the Hormuz Strait is not immediately ‘Open for Business,’ we will conclude our lovely ‘stay’ in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet ‘touched,’” Trump posted on social media. “This will be in retribution for our many soldiers, and others, that Iran has butchered and killed over the old Regime’s 47 year ‘Reign of Terror.’”

Destroying a country’s electrical and drinking water infrastructure, unless it is done for a specific military objective, violates international law governing armed conflicts, experts said, as does Trump’s additional threat to “take” Iran’s oil.

“Trump is in Putin territory,” said Fiona Hill, who served on the National Security Council in Trump’s first term, comparing Trump’s threat to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s repeated attacks on civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. “It’s a mafia boss play.”

Trump originally threatened to attack Iran’s electrical generation system on March 21, giving Iran 48 hours to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping. Just before the stock markets were to open on the deadline day, Trump announced he was moving zero hour back five days because Iran was making good progress. He extended it another 10 days on Thursday. It is unclear how Monday morning’s “immediately” wording affects the 10-day time frame, which runs through April 6.

Oona Hathaway, an international law professor at Yale University, said while all of Trump’s threatened actions are war crimes, the most egregious is targeting Iran’s water supply. “In particular, the attack on the desalinization water systems would be the deprivation of objects indispensable to survival of the civilian population. Such objects are specially protected,” she said.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt did not respond to a HuffPost query about Trump’s threats. During a briefing on Monday, she said, “Of course, this administration and the United States armed forces will always act within the confines of the law” — but then refused to take a follow-up question about Trump’s specific threat.

Brian Finucane, a lawyer who spent a decade at the State Department, said whether such an attack is illegal depends on the circumstances and whether it is being carried out for a specific military purpose. That Trump wrote in his post that it was being done as “retribution” clearly suggests, though, that the purpose is not military.

“The president of the United States should not be threatening war crimes,” he said, adding that in this case, the argument against hitting Iran in this manner goes beyond the moral one because Iran is likely to retaliate in like fashion against Gulf state allies of the United States.

“There is very much a tit-for-tat dynamic going on here,” he said. “Why should the United States care about that? Because it has global ramifications, including the US economy.”

That Trump would openly threaten war crimes now comes after years of advocating a lawless use of the military. Two decades ago, Trump repeatedly argued that the United States should confiscate Iraq’s oil — “Take the oil!” — following then-President George W. Bush’s invasion of that country. Stealing a nation’s natural resources is considered “pillaging” and is specifically outlawed by the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

As he ran for president in 2016, Trump said he would target the families of terrorists for killing. When it was pointed out that doing so would constitute a war crime and that US soldiers would refuse to carry out such an order, Trump insisted they would. “If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about,” he said.

During his first term, Trump granted clemency to retired Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher following his court-martial for posing with the body of an ISIS fighter who died in US captivity. Trump was urged to do so by Pete Hegseth, who at the time was a Fox News personality and is now Trump’s defense secretary, against the counsel of his own military commanders.

And starting last summer, Trump began ordering the extrajudicial killing of suspected drug smugglers on open boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific by the US military, essentially executing them without even a formal accusation, let alone a trial.

Hill said the US Navy’s sinking of an Iranian frigate after it left a cultural exchange in India, more than a thousand miles from the Persian Gulf, falls into the same category. “Is that not a war crime?” she wondered.

Trump, meanwhile, continues making contradictory claims about the state of things, possibly to calm the global oil market and the domestic stock market. His war, which he originally said would take no more than four or five weeks, is now into its fifth week — yet he continues to say it is well ahead of schedule.

He claims he doesn’t know who in Iran he should be negotiating with because he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have killed so many of Iran’s leaders while simultaneously asserting that peace negotiations are proceeding well.

As he returned to Washington on Sunday evening after another Florida golf weekend, Trump told reporters that he is actually killing those he is negotiating with. “We’re doing extremely well in that negotiation, but you never know with Iran because we negotiate with them and then we always have to blow them up,” he said.

On Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio laid out the objectives for the war: destroying Iran’s air force, navy, missile stockpile and the factories it could use to make more. Notably unmentioned was either its nuclear program or reopening the Strait of Hormuz to unfettered navigation.

That Trump’s own statements are often at odds with those from his top aides or even with self-evident reality is par for the course, said Hill. “He’s negotiating in real time, as he has always done,” she said, adding that his approach to Iran reminds her of the bullying way he has treated Ukraine. “He’s treating the Iranians like the Ukrainians. Unlike the Ukrainians, the Iranians have a hell of a chokehold on the rest of the world.”

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

The UK could be on the cusp of an energy crisis comparable to the chaos seen in the 1970s, according to a former deputy governor of the Bank of England.

Iran continues to restrict the number of oil tankers which can travel through the major shipping lane, the Strait of Hormuz, in retaliation against the US-Israel strikes from last month.

As the conflict continues, the global economy is facing a period of uncertainty – and energy bills are expected to rise, pushing up the cost of living.

The government is considering supporting some energy bills for targeted households once the current energy price cap lifts in July.

As fears grow over what lies ahead, former deputy governor of the Bank of England, Sir Howard Davies, suggested it was “probably right” to compare the current era to the crises we saw in the 1970s.

World oil prices soared at the time, triggered by the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. The price of an oil barrel then quadrupled in a matter of months.

Arab oil-producing countries only ended their oil embargo against western nations after intense negotiations, though another crisis emerged in 1979 in the wake of the Iranian Revolution.

Davies compared that worldwide energy crisis to the current situation.

“In this case it could well be that supplies from the Middle East are constrained for some time and therefore we may have to live with a higher oil price – perhaps not $150, but certainly higher than $60 it was when we started,” Davies told BBC Radio 4′s Today.

“That requires a plan to increase alternatives and also to reduce consumption because it also looks like we may have a long term reduction in supply.”

Brent crude oil hit $116 per barrel on Monday morning.

Keir Starmer tried to prevent any panic buying from the public when speaking to the media on Monday.

The PM said the advice from the energy sector chiefs is “normal use, no need to do anything other than what’s normal”.

He added: “Obviously, we are bearing down on energy costs. The single most important thing we could do is de-escalate to get the Strait of Hormuz open.

“That’s why I’m putting so much effort into that aspect.”

A Downing Street spokesperson also said: “It’s obviously a serious conflict as the prime minister and the chancellor have said and they’ve been very clear that the impact of disruption to shipping and to the Strait of Hormuz is having an impact here in the UK, and households up and down the UK.”

He said the government’s focus is on working with international partners to de-escalate the situation and reopen the Strait.

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Donald Trump has called on the UK to “go get your own oil” from the Strait of Hormuz in a new social media post.

The US president has tried and failed to get western allies including the UK to support him in his offensive against Iran.

After the US-Israeli strikes last month, Iran’s forces effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, which transports a fifth of the world’s oil supply.

The subsequent squeeze on fuel has caused a significant economic shock – and Trump has been trying to force Iran to negotiate as the global cost of living rises.

Writing on TruthSocial, he said the UK should either buy jet fuel from the US or “build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait and just TAKE IT”.

He said: “You’ve have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the USA won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us.”

The UK government has insisted it is not concerned about oil shortages right now though there are worries about an energy crisis later in the year.

Trump’s attack on Britain comes after Keir Starmer refused US requests to use British military bases for premptive strikes on Iran last month, before allowing American troops to use UK sites for “limited and defensive” strikes.

The president also claimed: “Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!”

Read Trump’s full TruthSocial post below:

All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT. You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil! President DJT

The US president also lashed out at France, claiming it will not allow planes headed to Israel, “loaded with military supplies” fly over French land.

“France has been VERY UNHELPFUL with respect to the ‘Butcher of Iran’ who has been successfully eliminated! The USA will REMEMBER!” Trump wrote.

Children chat about a lot of pretty odd stuff (remember Ballerina Cappuccina?) – however if you’ve heard them mention ‘gooning’ in conversation with their mates, or during gaming, it’s certainly worth pulling them up on it.

While you might consider ‘gooning’ as messing around or even goofing about (that’s what first came to my mind), per Mashable, it actually means “masturbating for a prolonged period of time, usually hours, without ever climaxing”.

In online spaces, it can also refer to zoning out as a result of intense sexual arousal, which Gabb (a company providing child-safe phones and tech) notes is “most often in the context of pornography”.

The issue is, if tweens and teens are using this terminology, chances are they are coming across pornography or inappropriate content online.

It’s not uncommon – over one-quarter (27%) of kids have come across pornography by age 11, according to a survey by the Children’s Commissioner.

While children shouldn’t be easily coming across porn due to stricter regulation as part of the Online Safety Act, they may still find ways to access it.

If your tween or teen is talking about gooning, even if it’s just joking with friends, it’s definitely worth asking them about it.

If they are getting involved in this activity, Fiona Yassin, a family psychotherapist, told HuffPost UK: “There’s a real neurodevelopmental risk here. During adolescence, the brain is still under construction – very much a work in progress – and when it’s repeatedly flooded with high-intensity sexual content, it drives spikes in dopamine that can create a pathway towards compulsive cycles.

“Over time, young people may need more and more intensity to achieve the same effect, which mirrors the mechanisms we see in other forms of addiction. That’s particularly concerning in a developing brain.”

Yassin, who is the founder and clinical director of The Wave Clinic, also warned that it can impact social development (zoning out in front of a screen might increase isolation, anxiety and low mood) and attachment, particularly as far as sexual relationships are concerned.

“This can disrupt the development of healthy attachment, increasing impulsivity, risk-taking, and a disregard for personal and relational safety,” she explained.

Teens who are exposed to this kind of content can also begin to develop unrealistic expectations of themselves and others, particularly as far as sex and relationships are concerned.

“It can encourage objectification, a sense of disposability in relationships, and a reduced capacity for genuine intimacy – building, sustaining, and nurturing connection,” said Yassin.

Ultimately, she warned, “it can shift how young people see others, which can lead to the oversexualisation of what would otherwise be non-sexual interactions”.

“That has wide-reaching implications for how they relate, connect, and develop into adulthood.”

Some children might use the word without fully understanding where it comes from and the potential impact on others. So, the key here is to be curious about where they’ve heard the term and what they think it means – which can help steer your conversations going forward.

“Rather than reacting with frustration or alarm, the most effective starting point for parents is to stay calm and curious,” said Yassin.

“Parents may ask: ‘What does this word mean to you?’ or ‘What do you think someone else might hear or feel when that word is used?’. Like many aspects of child and adolescent mental health, this situation offers a valuable teaching and learning opportunity.”

If they do know the full meaning, the therapist urges parents to seize the opportunity for age-appropriate honesty. “Teens, in particular, are more likely to engage when they feel respected, rather than lectured,” she added.

“Parents can gently widen the conversation to the bigger picture, which might include the consequences of the word, how pornography can shape expectations, impact mental health, and, in some cases, lead to more compulsive patterns of behaviour.”

Action for Children has a few helpful pointers for talking to kids about porn, but ultimately it advises parents to reassure kids it’s OK to feel curious about sex, while also explaining that “porn is unrealistic” and it “can be harmful for them to watch it”.