A recent United Nations report has sparked considerable debate among foreign policy hawks and anti-war advocates regarding alleged war crimes committed by U.S. forces during operations in Iran. This report has led critics to call for accountability, while those who support the military actions are defending the operations and pushing back against the findings.
The Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran released its findings on Thursday, asserting that there are credible grounds to believe U.S. forces conducted strikes on civilian locations that could be classified as war crimes, as stated by the U.N. Human Rights Office. Investigators indicated that the Minab school was clearly identifiable as a civilian facility and found no evidence suggesting it was being used for military functions. Moreover, U.S. forces allegedly failed to promptly update targeting information prior to the strike.
The report highlighted one attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab, which occurred on February 28, near an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps naval complex. This attack reportedly resulted in over 150 casualties, including approximately 120 schoolchildren.
The official narrative from the administration regarding the Minab strike evolved over time. Initially, Trump claimed on March 7 that the attack “was done by Iran.” However, just two days later, he expressed uncertainty, admitting that he didn’t know enough about the situation and indicated that an investigation was underway.
Gerry Condon, a Vietnam War veteran and board member of Veterans For Peace, stated to the Daily Caller News Foundation that the U.S. attack on the Minab school was indiscriminate and disregarded the potential for civilian casualties. He emphasized that such actions exemplify war crimes, and praised the U.N. fact-finding mission for establishing these facts.
David Swanson, the Executive Director of World BEYOND War, echoed the sentiment that the findings align with reports from various media and human rights organizations. He argued that under the U.N. Charter, all aspects of what he described as an illegal war on Iran should be classified as crimes, and failing to acknowledge confirmed atrocities merely perpetuates the issue.
In response to the U.N. report, the Trump administration countered, asserting that the Iranian regime is the only entity guilty of war crimes during the conflict.
White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly criticized the U.N. Human Rights Council, accusing it of failing to advance human rights while indulging in meaningless commentary over the years. She added that the Iranian regime has perpetrated atrocities against its own people, harmed Americans abroad, committed acts of terrorism, and conducted indiscriminate assaults on neighboring countries. According to her, the President’s actions are aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which, in his view, enhances global safety and stability.
Some analysts have gone further than the White House’s response, calling for sanctions against the U.N. individuals responsible for the report. Max Primorac from The Heritage Foundation referred to the three-member U.N. team as left-wing radicals in collusion with the Iranian regime, highlighting what he perceives as their anti-American and anti-Semitic stance.
UNICEF reported that the strike resulted in the deaths of 168 children while classes were ongoing, stressing that international humanitarian law protects schools and children.
Omid Memarian, an analyst at DAWN, noted the necessity for a serious response from the U.S. regarding the U.N. findings. He emphasized that the deaths of over 150 individuals, predominantly children, deserve more than a dismissive reaction and called for accountability and possible disciplinary measures if the evidence indicates violations of war laws.
According to the U.N. report, investigators found no proof that the school served military purposes, identifying it as a civilian site.
Gordon pointed out that it’s not uncommon for the U.S. to target civilian sites and dismiss these incidents as “collateral damage.” He cited Trump’s previous remarks that threatened significant civilian casualties.
In a stark warning issued in April, Trump expressed that a whole civilization might be lost, suggesting a dire outcome he didn’t desire yet believed was imminent.
Geoffrey Corn, director at Texas Tech University, commented on Trump’s persistent bombastic rhetoric, which appears to undermine the rationale for military actions, suggesting a lack of credible military objectives.
The U.N. mission concluded that U.S. forces failed to properly update target information related to the school and did not check if it was a military target, suggesting that these factors could go beyond mere negligence.
According to previous assessments, three conditions must be met for a military target to be justified legally: the significance of its military function, the principle of proportionality regarding civilian harm, and the obligation to take precautions to minimize civilian casualties.
President Trump stated in June that investigations were still ongoing regarding the Minab incident, asserting that no actions were taken intentionally to harm civilians.
Memarian urged the U.S. to engage cooperatively with the U.N.’s investigation, noting that accountability should extend to acknowledging civilian deaths and providing reparations to victims.
The U.N. report also addressed a separate strike on a sports facility and nearby residential area in Lamerd that resulted in civilian casualties and substantial damage. This incident was classified as indiscriminate and similarly deemed a war crime.
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) denied any involvement in the Lamerd strike, contending that American forces did not conduct attacks in that area on the specified date.
CENTCOM also refuted claims concerning the presence of U.S. munitions at the attack site, asserting instead that the missile appeared to be an Iranian Hoveyzeh cruise missile rather than a U.S. Precision Strike Missile.
Memarian cautioned that nothing could entirely restore credibility if a double standard persists in address war crimes—demanding accountability from adversaries but not applying the same expectations to itself. He advocated for thorough investigation, transparency, acknowledgment of wrongs, reparations, and accountability for responsible officials, arguing this would fortify America’s position in demanding similar standards from Iran and other oppressive regimes globally.
The U.N. report also made various accusations regarding Iran’s handling of protests that started in late December, noting unlawful killings, arbitrary detentions, torture, and other abuses against civilians that the U.N. characterized as systematic attacks amounting to possible crimes against humanity.
As part of this crackdown, the U.N. noted incidents of killings, communication restrictions, and the application of the death penalty. Iranian authorities have rejected these allegations, attributing violence during protests to rioters and foreign actors.
The fact-finding mission has called for accountability from both the conflicting parties and emphasized the necessity for compliance with international law standards.
Swanson commented that it is contradictory for the U.S. to demand legal accountability from other nations while shielding itself and its allies from similar scrutiny.
