They know already that the US caused this, or else they wouldn't be doing this investigation
On February 28, a missile struck a primary school in Minab, Iran, killing 168 people — approximately 110 of them children — during the opening days of a US-Israeli military campaign against Iran. Two months later, the Pentagon has offered only a single repeated phrase: the incident is under investigation. Five former US officials, drawing on decades of institutional memory, say this silence is without modern precedent — a departure from a long-standing practice of accountability that has, until now, survived changes in administration and ideology. What is absent is not merely information, but the acknowledgment that civilian life, even in war, carries moral weight.
- A Tomahawk missile destroyed a primary school in Minab on February 28, killing 168 people including roughly 110 children — one of the deadliest single strikes on civilians in recent American military history.
- Preliminary US military findings, reported by American media, suggest outdated intelligence coordinates directed the strike at the school rather than an adjacent Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps base — yet the Pentagon refuses to confirm or deny any involvement.
- Five former senior officials, including a retired Air Force judge advocate general and former Pentagon civilian harm advisers, say the two-month silence strikingly contradicts how every comparable incident has been handled under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
- President Trump publicly blamed Iran for the strike without evidence, and former officials suggest the Pentagon's silence is driven by an institutional reluctance to contradict the president rather than any genuine uncertainty about what happened.
- An investigating officer has been appointed outside Central Command — a procedural gesture toward independence — but no timeline, no public findings, and no commitment to prevent recurrence have been offered to the public or to the families of the dead.
Two months after a missile destroyed a primary school in Minab, Iran, killing 168 people — roughly 110 of them children — the Pentagon has said almost nothing. The incident is under investigation. That is all.
Five former US officials, including a retired Air Force judge advocate general who once advised Central Command, say this posture is extraordinary. Reviewing the historical record, they found three comparable cases where American strikes killed civilians — under both Democratic and Republican administrations — in which the Pentagon released substantial details within weeks: press conferences, senior statements, explanations of what went wrong. None of that has happened here.
The strike occurred on February 28, as the US and Israel opened their war against Iran. A Tomahawk missile hit the school. US media reported in early March that military investigators had already reached a preliminary conclusion: US forces were likely responsible, having been given outdated target coordinates that directed the strike toward the school rather than the IRGC base beside it. The BBC independently verified video of a Tomahawk striking the IRGC facility. The Pentagon has neither confirmed nor denied any of it.
Lieutenant Colonel Rachel VanLandingham, a former senior legal adviser at Central Command, told the BBC the current posture departs strikingly from standard practice — that past administrations had at least demonstrated a commitment to the laws of war. Wes Bryant, who until recently advised the Pentagon's Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, was more direct: the fact that a formal investigation was initiated at all, he said, points to the military already knowing US forces caused the harm — and simply refusing to say so.
President Trump offered his own account on March 7, saying in his opinion that Iran was responsible, providing no evidence. When shown video of the Tomahawk strike, he said he had not seen it and claimed, without basis, that Iran possesses Tomahawk missiles. Former officials who worked on civilian harm reduction suggest the Pentagon's silence is less about uncertainty than about institutional reluctance to contradict the president. Charles Blaha, a 32-year foreign service veteran, described Trump's claim as clearly untrue and attributed the administration's posture to a broader rejection of any negative news about the war.
An investigating officer has been appointed outside Central Command — a procedural step that former officials acknowledge carries at least the form of independence. But with 168 people dead, a preliminary military assessment already pointing toward US responsibility, and two months elapsed, the American government has offered the public nothing of substance. The silence has become its own kind of statement.
Two months have passed since a missile tore through a primary school in Minab, Iran, killing 168 people—roughly 110 of them children. The Pentagon's response has been a single, repeated sentence: the incident is under investigation. No details. No timeline. No acknowledgment of what happened or who fired the shot.
Five former US officials, including a retired Air Force judge advocate general who once advised Central Command, say this silence is extraordinary. They have reviewed the Pentagon's historical record and found a stark departure from precedent. In three comparable cases where American military operations killed civilians—cases spanning both Democratic and Republican administrations—the Pentagon released substantial details within weeks. Press conferences. Statements from senior military officials. Explanations of what went wrong and how it would be prevented next time. None of that has happened here.
The strike occurred on February 28, as the US and Israel opened their war against Iran. A Tomahawk missile hit the school. US media reported in early March that American military investigators had concluded, in a preliminary assessment, that US forces were likely responsible—that outdated target coordinates supplied by an intelligence agency had led to the strike on the school instead of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps base adjacent to it. The BBC independently verified video footage showing a US Tomahawk hitting the IRGC facility. But the Pentagon has neither confirmed nor denied any of this. When asked directly whether the military base was a pre-planned target on February 28, the Defense Department declined to answer, despite having publicly discussed pre-planned targets in dozens of other instances during the war.
Lieutenant Colonel Rachel VanLandingham, who served as a senior legal adviser at Central Command during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, told the BBC that the current posture "strikingly departs from the standard response." She noted that past administrations, whatever their politics, had at least demonstrated a commitment to the laws of war and to accountability. What is missing now, she said, is any acknowledgment of responsibility and any statement that such a strike will not happen again. Wes Bryant, who until recently advised the Pentagon's Civilian Protection Center of Excellence on precision warfare and civilian harm mitigation, was more direct. When the military's preliminary inquiry establishes both that civilian harm occurred and that US forces were operating in the area and could have caused it, a formal investigation is initiated. "That just points even more to the fact that they know already that the US caused this," Bryant said, "or else they wouldn't be doing this investigation and they just don't want to acknowledge it or speak to it."
President Trump has offered his own explanation. On March 7, he said in his "opinion" that Iran was responsible for the Minab strike, offering no evidence. When shown video of the Tomahawk strike, he said he had not seen it and claimed, without substantiation, that Iran possesses Tomahawk missiles. When asked about military reports that the US had hit the school, he said he knew nothing about it. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, asked about the strike in early March, said only that the Pentagon was investigating and that the US "never target civilian targets."
Former officials who worked on civilian harm reduction at the State Department and Pentagon point to a pattern in how the US has historically handled such incidents. The country often initially denies involvement, only to be contradicted by media reporting and investigations by nongovernmental organizations, forcing a public reversal. Annie Shiel, who worked on civilian harm reduction at the State Department and now directs US advocacy for the Center for Civilians in Conflict, said she would "absolutely" expect the Pentagon to acknowledge any US role while the investigation proceeds. Charles Blaha, a former director of the State Department's Office of Security and Human Rights who spent 32 years in the foreign service, suggested that the administration's reluctance to speak stems from an unwillingness to contradict the president's public statements blaming Iran. He described Trump's claim as "really far-fetched and very clearly not true" and attributed the silence to what he saw as the administration's rejection of "any negative news about the war they branded as unpatriotic."
The investigation continues. The Pentagon appointed an investigating officer outside Central Command, which former officials acknowledge is at least a procedural step toward independence. But two months in, with 168 people dead and a preliminary military assessment already suggesting US responsibility, the American government has offered the public nothing—no explanation, no timeline, no commitment to change. The silence itself has become the story.
Notable Quotes
This incident is currently under investigation, with more details to be provided when they become available— Pentagon official to BBC
The current US position strikingly departs from the standard response. Administrations in the past at least demonstrated fidelity, a commitment to the law of war— Lt Col Rachel VanLandingham, retired Air Force judge advocate general
To not even be able to have any comment on it whatsoever is just unacceptable— Wes Bryant, former Pentagon adviser on civilian harm mitigation
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does the Pentagon's silence matter so much? Isn't an investigation just an investigation?
Because investigations have a public dimension. The military doesn't investigate in a vacuum—it investigates in front of the world, especially when 110 children are dead. The precedent matters. In past cases, the Pentagon would say something within weeks, even if it was just acknowledging the incident and committing to transparency. This time, nothing.
But couldn't they just be being careful? Maybe they genuinely don't know what happened yet.
That's what the Pentagon claims. But the preliminary military assessment—the internal finding that US forces likely did it—that came in early March. We're now in late April. The former officials are saying that if you've already determined civilian harm occurred and that US forces were in the area, you've met the threshold for a formal investigation. The silence after that point reads differently.
Different how?
Like they know the answer and don't want to say it. Or like they're waiting for political cover. One former official said the administration seems reluctant to contradict the president, who publicly blamed Iran without evidence. If you're the Pentagon and the president has already staked his credibility on a claim, admitting he was wrong becomes a problem.
So this is political, not procedural?
It's both. The procedure—the investigation—is real. But the decision to say nothing publicly, to refuse to answer basic questions about whether a military base was a target, that's a choice. And it breaks with how the US has handled similar incidents for decades, across administrations.
What happens if they eventually confirm US involvement?
Then they'll have to explain why they waited two months to say so, why they let the president's false claim stand unchallenged, and why they broke their own precedent for transparency. The silence now makes any eventual acknowledgment harder to accept.