Reported findings that the United States is responsible for the recent deadly school attack in Iran, and that it was based on outdated targeting data, highlight the need for reform and accountability within the US military to minimize civilian harm during conflict, Human Rights Watch said today.
The New York Times reported on March 11 that an ongoing US military investigation has preliminarily determined that the United States is responsible for a Tomahawk missile strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in the town of Minab on February 28, 2026.
"The findings of the US military investigation into the Minab school attack show a violation of the laws of war that cannot be boiled down to a blameless mistake," said Sarah Yager, Washington director at Human Rights Watch. "Even if those responsible for the strike did not deliberately target a school full of children, the US military has an obligation to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm, which it clearly did not do in this case."
The New York Times reported that the investigation found that the attack was the result of a targeting mistake by the US military, which was carrying out strikes on an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps naval base of which the school building had previously been a part. The report said that US Central Command officers created the target coordinates for the strike using outdated data provided by the US Defense Intelligence Agency.
Iranian authorities told the New York Times that the attack killed at least 175 people, including scores of civilians. Human Rights Watch reviewed lists with dozens of names of children and adults reportedly killed in the attack, and was able to immediately match some names with ages and other identifying information on body bags and caskets.
Under customary laws of war applicable to the armed conflict in Iran, an attacking force must do everything feasible to verify that targets are military objectives or cancel or suspend the attack if it becomes apparent that the target is not a military objective. The laws of war prohibit indiscriminate attacks, which include attacks that are not directed at a specific military objective. No evidence has been put forward suggesting that there was a military objective in or near the school grounds at the time of the attack.
Even if the attackers were targeting a legitimate military target in the vicinity of the school, the laws of war prohibit attacks on military objectives if the anticipated harm to civilians and civilian objects is disproportionate compared to the expected military gain from the attack.
Serious violations of the laws of war committed by individuals with criminal intent-that is, deliberately or recklessly-are war crimes. Investigations into the attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh school should consider all circumstances of the attack, including whether those responsible acted deliberately or recklessly, and what knowledge they would or should have had about the school before and during the attack, which took place during a school day.
A government responsible for violating the laws of war is obligated to make full reparation for the loss, including compensation, rehabilitation, and other appropriate redress. Governments have an obligation to investigate and appropriately prosecute violations of international law, including war crimes, committed by their own forces. Those responsible for the Minab school attack should be held accountable, including through prosecutions where appropriate.
US forces had improved targeting processes over recent years to minimize civilian harm, including relying on multiple intelligence sources, teams to advise on the civilian environment, and confirmation that the target is a lawful military objective before a strike is approved. If the attack on the military base in Minab relied on outdated or incomplete information about the site or if other changes in the targeting process resulted in less oversight of strikes, it suggests a breakdown in those safeguards.
Congress should hold a hearing specifically to understand current US military processes to distinguish between civilians and combatants as required by international humanitarian law, including the role that any artificial intelligence or automated systems play in determining targets. The use of AI in military targeting decisions raises new risks for accountability in conflict. Military targeting decisions should not be made based solely on automated or AI-generated recommendations.
"Accountability is not just about acknowledging what went wrong, but about ensuring that failures in intelligence, target verification, or decision-making are identified and fixed so this never happens again," Yager said. "The United States should make the findings public, discipline or prosecute those responsible, and carry out reforms to ensure its forces are minimizing civilian harm to the greatest extent possible."
