The reported strike on the Shajarah Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, which Iranian state media claims killed at least 115 people, most of them children, demands analysis grounded not in emotion or propaganda but in the strict framework of international humanitarian law, military doctrine, and state responsibility. Satellite imagery indicates that the school stands adjacent to a naval installation associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and that historically the building may once have formed part of a military compound before being separated by perimeter walls in later years. This spatial proximity between a civilian educational facility and a recognised military objective immediately raises complex legal and operational questions that extend far beyond the binary narratives of blame currently circulating in political discourse.
Under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, particularly Additional Protocol I, which codifies much of customary international humanitarian law applicable in international armed conflict, the foundational principles governing hostilities are distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack. The principle of distinction obliges parties to direct operations only against military objectives and to spare civilian objects and civilians from direct attack. A military objective is defined as an object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction offers a definite military advantage. A school, as a place dedicated to education, is prima facie a civilian object and enjoys protected status unless and for such time as it is used for military purposes.
The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks which may be expected to cause incidental civilian harm excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This assessment must be made ex ante, based on information reasonably available to the commander at the time, rather than on hindsight. The principle of precautions requires that all feasible steps be taken to verify targets, to choose means and methods of attack that minimise civilian harm, and to cancel or suspend an attack if it becomes apparent that the target is not a military objective or that the strike would be disproportionate.
The geographic reality that the school is situated adjacent to a naval base complicates but does not dissolve these obligations. International humanitarian law does not forbid the placement of civilian objects near military objectives per se, particularly in densely populated urban environments where military and civilian infrastructure often coexist. However, Article 58 of Additional Protocol I obliges parties to the conflict, to the maximum extent feasible, to avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas and to take other necessary precautions to protect civilians under their control from the dangers resulting from military operations. If a state constructs or maintains a military installation in close proximity to a functioning primary school, it assumes heightened responsibility to mitigate foreseeable risks to children. The duty to protect is not transferred to an attacking party simply because civilians are near a legitimate military target, yet the defending state’s siting decisions may factor into broader legal and moral evaluations.
A detailed examination of commercially available satellite imagery of the site shows that the school and the naval installation are separated by a defined perimeter wall, yet the spatial gap between the two appears minimal. The facilities are contiguous rather than interwoven, with the school compound positioned immediately north of the military enclosure. There is no substantial buffer corridor, no layered blast mitigation infrastructure, and no visible hardened separation zone. The proximity is such that any strike against structures within the base compound would necessarily require rigorous modelling of blast radius, debris projection, and secondary structural collapse risk. In operational planning terms, adjacency at this scale significantly heightens the foreseeability of incidental civilian harm. The existence of distinct access roads and compound demarcation further supports the presumption that the school was functioning as a civilian educational facility rather than as an active component of the military installation at the time of the strike, absent evidence to the contrary.
Satellite imagery described in the reporting suggests that the school building was formerly integrated within a military compound in 2013 and later separated by perimeter walls by 2016. If accurate, this history raises legitimate questions about urban planning decisions and whether sufficient buffer zones were established between military and civilian facilities. That said, the mere adjacency of a school to a naval base does not strip the school of its protected status. For the school itself to become a lawful military objective, there would need to be credible evidence that it was being used for military purposes at the time of the strike, such as storing weapons, housing combatants, or serving as a command post. No such evidence has been presented in the material cited.
The fact that separate strikes reportedly targeted structures within the naval base on the same day suggests that the base was a military objective. The critical legal question is whether the strike that destroyed much of the school building was a deliberate targeting decision, an intelligence failure, a guidance error, or collateral damage resulting from an attack on the base. Each scenario carries distinct legal consequences. A deliberate attack on a functioning school not used for military purposes would constitute a grave breach and potentially a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. An attack on a legitimate military objective that foreseeably caused excessive civilian casualties would violate the proportionality rule. An attack based on faulty intelligence may still incur responsibility if the verification process fell below the standard of feasible precautions.
Assertions that it is inherently irrational to blame an attacking state simply because a civilian facility stands near a military installation misunderstand the reciprocal nature of legal obligations in armed conflict. Both the attacking and defending parties bear concurrent duties. The defending state must avoid co locating military objectives with civilian infrastructure to the extent feasible, and must not use civilians to shield military assets. The attacking state must assess proportionality and take all feasible precautions regardless of the defender’s conduct. The law does not operate as a moral ledger in which one party’s imprudence cancels the other’s obligations.
The involvement of international actors such as UNESCO and statements by humanitarian organisations underscore that schools enjoy reinforced normative protection as places dedicated to education and child welfare. While the Safe Schools Declaration is a political commitment rather than a binding treaty, it reflects a growing consensus that education facilities should be shielded from the effects of armed conflict. Even absent formal adherence, customary international humanitarian law requires that special care be taken when military operations risk harming children, who are recognised as particularly vulnerable civilians under international law.
From a strategic and international relations perspective, strikes resulting in mass child casualties carry profound reputational and diplomatic consequences irrespective of legal justifications. Contemporary warfare operates under intense global scrutiny, and the informational environment is inseparable from operational outcomes. Even a strike that is technically lawful under a narrow reading of military necessity can generate strategic defeat if it erodes legitimacy, galvanises opposition, and fuels cycles of retaliation. Conversely, states facing allegations of civilian harm often emphasise the presence of nearby military assets to argue either misidentification or unintended collateral damage.
In environments where military installations and civilian institutions exist within immediate physical proximity, the attacking force’s targeting cell is expected to conduct layered collateral damage estimation modelling. Contemporary military doctrine among technologically advanced armed forces includes predictive blast modelling, civilian pattern of life analysis, and real time intelligence confirmation protocols. If a school stands within metres of a designated military objective, the proportionality calculus becomes exceptionally sensitive. The anticipated military advantage must be concrete and direct, and the anticipated incidental loss must not be excessive. The narrower the separation, the heavier the burden of precaution.
In assessing whether the proximity of the school to a naval base constitutes infrastructural negligence, one must consider the broader urban context. Many cities in the Middle East and elsewhere evolved through decades of layered development in which military compounds were later surrounded by residential and educational facilities. In some cases the reverse occurred, with military facilities expanding into civilian zones. Determining which party bears planning responsibility requires careful chronological and cadastral analysis rather than instinctive judgement. The satellite record indicating separation of the building from the base by 2016 suggests at least some recognition of the need to demarcate civilian and military spaces, though whether that separation was adequate is a matter for technical urban and security assessment.
If credible investigations were to establish that the school was not being used for military purposes and that no feasible precautions were taken to prevent or minimise harm, then legal responsibility could arise for the attacking party under customary international humanitarian law and potentially under domestic military justice systems. If, alternatively, evidence were to demonstrate that the school premises were being used in a manner that rendered them a military objective, the legal analysis would shift dramatically, though the proportionality assessment would remain central.