Seven days after the strike, with U.S. investigators preliminarily pointing at American responsibility, none of the following questions have been publicly answered:
1. How did a functioning elementary school appear on a U.S. target list? The school opened in 2015 on the grounds of a former IRGC base. The base had been closed for approximately 15 years. The school is visibly distinct from the adjacent military compound in satellite imagery dating to at least 2016. If U.S. targeting intelligence was based on decade-old data about the site’s military status, who was responsible for maintaining that intelligence? Who reviewed it before the strike?
2. Why was the school struck three times? A single strike could be explained as a targeting error. A second strike — on the prayer room where survivors had taken shelter, after a principal called parents and told them the school had been hit — raises a different set of questions. A third strike followed. Under international humanitarian law, once a location is known to contain civilians, continuing to strike it is not a targeting error. Who authorized the follow-on strikes? What were the rules of engagement?
3. Were the targeting criteria for Operation Epic Fury ever reviewed by legal counsel? Standard military practice requires a legal review of targeting packages before strikes are executed, including an assessment of civilian presence and proportionality. The CBC reported that the school was struck as part of “a precision airstrike on a military complex immediately adjacent to the building” — and that it was “not a mistake” in the sense that the weapons hit exactly where they were aimed. If the targeting package included the school, who approved it?
4. What is the status of the investigation, and when will it be completed? Hegseth acknowledged the investigation on March 4. It is now March 7. Preliminary findings have leaked to multiple news organizations. The administration has not provided a public timeline, a named official leading the inquiry, or any commitment to release findings publicly.
5. Will Congress see the full targeting package? The closed-door briefing told members of Congress that Israel was not responsible. That’s one answer to one question. The targeting criteria, the intelligence underlying the strike, and the rules of engagement governing follow-on strikes are a different matter. No public commitment has been made to provide that information to Congress, let alone the public.
The Context
The Minab strike is not the only civilian casualty of Operation Epic Fury. UNICEF confirmed on March 6 that at least 181 children have been killed across Iran since the campaign began — a number that does not yet incorporate the full Minab count. The total death toll in Iran has exceeded 1,330 people in eight days.
But the Minab school stands apart. It is the single deadliest strike of the war. It killed children who were in class, during a school day that was proceeding normally. The building that killed them had been a school for more than a decade. The missiles hit it three times.
The administration’s position — that it is “investigating” — has now held for seven days, through a preliminary conclusion by the investigators themselves that points at American responsibility, through international condemnation from UNESCO, the UN Secretary-General, and multiple independent human rights bodies, and through the funerals of the children in Minab whose small coffins were carried through the streets on March 3.
The war’s military picture, the Trump administration says, is moving in the right direction. U.S. forces have struck more than 3,000 targets in eight days. Iran’s air defenses are largely destroyed. The strike count is accelerating.
None of that is an answer to what happened at Shajareh Tayyebeh on the morning of February 28.