Five former US officials, including a former top military lawyer, have criticized the Pentagon for its silence regarding potential American involvement in a deadly strike on an Iranian school earlier this year. Some of these officials stated that it was highly unusual not to release even basic details of the strike after such a significant period.
A missile struck a primary school in Minab on February 28 during the initial stages of the US-Israeli conflict, resulting in the deaths of 168 people, including approximately 110 children, according to Iranian officials. In the two months since the incident, the Pentagon has only stated that it is currently under investigation.
US media reported in early March that US military investigators believed American forces were likely responsible for unintentionally striking the school, though a final conclusion had not yet been reached. When asked a series of questions by the BBC regarding the strike and accusations of a lack of transparency, a Pentagon official responded, “this incident is currently under investigation,” adding that further details would be provided once available.
The BBC has reviewed three historical cases where civilians were killed during US military operations, noting that in each instance, significantly more information was released by the Pentagon within less than a month. Lt Col Rachel E VanLandingham, a retired Judge Advocate General in the US Air Force and former senior legal adviser at US Central Command during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, stated that the current US position “strikingly departs from the standard response.” VanLandingham added, “Administrations in the past at least demonstrated fidelity, a commitment to the law of war,” arguing that what was “missing” from the administration’s statements was a commitment to accountability and, “importantly, to ensure this doesn’t happen again.”
On March 7, President Trump stated that in his “opinion,” Iran was to blame for the Minab strike, without providing evidence. Days later, when questioned about video footage showing a US Tomahawk missile striking the military base adjacent to the school, he claimed, “I haven’t seen it” and asserted, without evidence, that Iran possessed Tomahawk missiles. On March 11, when asked about reports indicating an initial military probe had found that the US hit the school, Trump responded, “I don’t know about it.” On March 4, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked by the BBC about the strike and stated, “All I can say is that we’re investigating that. We of course never target civilian targets.”
The US Department of Defense has declined to answer multiple questions regarding the strike. It has repeatedly refused to confirm whether the Iranian military base next to the school was one of its pre-planned targets on February 28, despite publicly discussing pre-planned targets or operations in numerous other instances during the conflict.
Last month, the BBC independently confirmed video footage showing a US Tomahawk missile striking the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) base adjacent to the school. US media reports cited unnamed military officials stating that a preliminary inquiry had determined a US missile struck the school, attributing this to outdated target coordinates provided by a US intelligence agency. The Pentagon has not commented on these reports.
Wes Bryant, a former senior adviser on precision warfare and civilian harm mitigation at the Pentagon’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, told the BBC that the military’s preliminary inquiry would routinely establish two things: whether civilian harm actually occurred, and whether the US was operating in the area at the time and could have caused it. He stated, “When you meet both of those criteria, that’s the only time that an investigation is actually formally initiated.” He added, “From a process standpoint… that just points even more to the fact that they know already that the US caused this, or else they wouldn’t be conducting this investigation, and they just don’t want to acknowledge it or speak to it.” Bryant, who left the Pentagon last year when staffing at the civilian harm unit was significantly reduced under Hegseth, remarked, “To not even be able to have any comment on it whatsoever is just unacceptable.”
Another former defense official, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject matter, told the BBC that while it’s common for some civilian harm investigations to take a long time depending on complexity, “this is a case where… it’s unusually opaque in that I can tell from the situation it’s actually not that complicated.” The former official added, “Normally the Pentagon would take immediate [or] relatively fast responsibility and then probably require a longer period of time to provide all the details, so to me it’s problematic.”
Democrats Demand Answers
Congressional Democrats have repeatedly written to Hegseth, posing a series of questions about the Minab strike, beginning with whether the US carried it out. The BBC has reviewed two of the Pentagon’s response letters, sent on behalf of Hegseth, which provided no answers to any of the questions. A letter sent on April 2 to Democrats stated that an investigating officer from outside the CENTCOM chain of command had been appointed, and the results of that investigation would be shared once completed.
The BBC approached 15 Republican members of Congress to inquire about the administration’s handling of the strike, but all declined to comment. This included top Republicans on committees covering national security in both the Senate and House of Representatives. On March 10, Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana condemned the strike, telling the New York Times: “I think we made a mistake. It was a terrible, terrible mistake.”
Pentagon officials have provided several closed-door briefings on military operations to members of Congress since the start of the conflict with Iran, and have been asked questions about the Minab strike. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, told the BBC that officials claimed they could not comment due to their ongoing investigation, a response he labeled “pathetic and completely inadequate.” He noted there had been no admission of US responsibility in the briefings.
Historical Precedents of Civilian Casualties
The BBC has reviewed three historical cases involving civilian fatalities to draw a comparison with the Trump administration’s response to the Minab strike.
A drone strike near Kabul airport in Afghanistan in August 2021: The Pentagon initially stated it had targeted a vehicle known to pose an imminent Islamic State group threat. In reality, it had killed a family of 10, including seven children, which became clear within days from media reporting. Less than three weeks after the bombing, the Pentagon admitted its responsibility and apologized.
The bombing of a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, in October 2015: An attack by a US AC-130 helicopter gunship killed at least 42 people, including 24 patients and 14 medics from the medical charity MSF. Five days later, the commander of US military forces for Afghanistan provided detailed congressional testimony, informing lawmakers that the attack was a “US decision made within the US chain of command.” The same day, the White House admitted the mistake and apologized.
An attack on the al-Amiriyah shelter in Baghdad, Iraq, in February 1991: A US Air Force bombing killed 408 civilians. The administration claimed the bunker was a military command center and thus a legitimate target. The BBC, among other reporters who visited the site shortly after the bombing, found no evidence to support this. The US administration acknowledged from the start that there were civilian deaths and that it was a US strike.
Each of these historical cases, spanning both Democratic and Republican administrations, involved senior US military officials making significantly more detailed public comments than has been observed so far in the Minab strike. Annie Shiel, a former US official who worked on civilian harm reduction at the State Department, noted that previous cases followed a pattern where the US would “come out and say ‘it was not us,’ only for media and [non-governmental organization] reporting to show that in fact it was a US strike, and then the US has to walk that back.”
Shiel, now US Advocacy Director with the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), stated that the Pentagon’s appointment of an investigating officer outside CENTCOM in the Minab case was “at least on paper a good start on independence.” However, she told the BBC she would “absolutely” expect further acknowledgment of any US role while the probe is ongoing.
Corroborating details about the incident has also been complicated by the fact that Iranian authorities have not granted independent access to the site. The UN Fact Finding Mission on Iran stated on March 17 that it had sought access but had not been permitted to visit the site.
Charles O. Blaha, former director of the State Department’s Office of Security and Human Rights, suggested that a lack of transparency in Washington could stem from a “reluctance” within the administration to contradict the president after he blamed Iran for the strike, a claim he described as “really far-fetched and very clearly not true.” Blaha, who spent 32 years in the US foreign service and is now a senior adviser to Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), attributed the relative silence in the Minab case to what he perceived as the administration’s rejection of “any negative news about the war they branded as unpatriotic.”
#MinabAttack #IranSchoolStrike #PentagonSilence #USMilitary #CivilianCasualties #WarCrimesInvestigation #TransparencyNow #HumanRights #MiddleEastConflict #Accountability
Leave a Reply