The United States may have committed war crimes in two airstrikes in Iran, according to human rights experts commissioned by the U.N.’s top human rights body. They say there are “reasonable grounds” to believe U.S. forces carried out the strikes, including one that hit a primary school in the southern city of Minab.

That school is where the story stops feeling abstract.

The report from the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran says the attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab killed more than 150 people. Iranian officials say around 120 of them were schoolchildren. The mission concluded the strike was indiscriminate, causing civilian deaths and damage to civilian infrastructure, which amounts to a war crime under international law.

The experts said the school was a clearly identifiable civilian object. They found no evidence it was being used for military purposes. They also said the building was the intended point of impact, not an errant strike or collateral damage from an attack on a nearby Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps naval complex. Survivor accounts cited in the report say the school was hit twice.

There was a second strike, on a sports complex and residential area in Lamerd. The mission says precision missiles launched clouds of tungsten pellets over the site, killing 22 civilians. That attack was also called indiscriminate and therefore a war crime.

Taken together, the two strikes killed at least 177 civilians, the report says. The experts said the U.S. failure to update targeting-database information about the school and to confirm it as a military objective amounted to “more than mere negligence.” Their words are blunt: the U.S. directed strikes at the school while aware of a substantial risk of hitting a civilian object and acted recklessly about that possibility.

This is not a court verdict. The report is non-binding. It does not order sanctions or force any government to act. But it adds to a growing body of international evidence about possible crimes in the war in Iran, and it could be used in future international justice efforts. The mission urged both Iran and the United States to stop all violations and crimes, provide full compensation to victims, and make sure such acts are not repeated.

The same report also charges the Iranian government with gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity during its crackdown on nationwide protests. The mission says civilians in Iran have been caught between abuses by their own government and attacks from outside. That part matters because it keeps the focus on people.

The United States has not acknowledged carrying out the February strikes on the school in Minab or the sports complex in Lamerd. U.S. officials have disputed some details, including reports about the weapons used in Lamerd. The mission said its conclusions rest on evidence it gathered, including media reports and preliminary findings from a U.S. military inquiry that pointed to U.S. forces as responsible for the school strike. Only the U.S. possesses Tomahawk cruise missiles in this conflict, the experts note, and they say those were used in the Minab attack.

You can argue about the phrase “reasonable grounds.” You can ask for more proof. You can wait for other bodies to weigh in. But the report is specific about what it found and why it matters. It names the school. It names the city. It names the date, February 28, when the U.S. and Israel launched their offensive against Iran. It says the school was adjacent to a naval base but still a civilian object. It says the damage was not a mistake in the way people usually mean mistake.

I keep thinking about the line where the experts say the U.S. acted recklessly. Reckless is not a word they throw around. It sits there in the text, plain and heavy. It does not sound like a legal loophole. It sounds like a judgment about choices made with eyes open.

This story will move from Geneva to courtrooms and newsrooms and diplomatic cables. Lawyers will parse the language. Governments will issue statements. Some people will call it propaganda. Others will call it long overdue. Through all of that, the core facts do not change. A primary school in Minab was struck. More than 150 people died. Around 120 were children, by Iranian counts. A sports complex in Lamerd was struck. Twenty-two civilians died. A U.N.-backed mission says there are reasonable grounds to call these war crimes.

The report could influence international legal actions and highlight accountability for military actions in Iran. It could be cited in cases brought before international courts. It could pressure governments to demand answers. Or it could fade into the background noise of another conflict. That part is unknown. What is known is that the mission put its findings on the record, and the record now includes these strikes and these numbers and this language.

There is a moment in every story like this where the talking stops and the quiet takes over. For me, it comes when I read the sentence about the school being the intended point of impact. Not nearby. Not caught in the blast. The intended point. After that, the rest of the paragraph feels like explanation. The first sentence is the thing that stays.

Human rights experts commissioned by the U.N.’s top human rights body say they have found reasonable grounds to believe the United States committed war crimes in two strikes in Iran. The report adds to international evidence gathered about crimes in the war in Iran. Those are the documented claims. Everything else is argument, reaction, and the slow work of justice, if it comes.

Explore: Local News