What does the UN report say about US war crimes in Iran?

Highlights:

• UN mission finds possible US war crimes in two strikes
• Minab school strike killed at least 157 people, investigators found
• Analysts identified US Tomahawk missiles used in the Minab strike
• Lamerd sports complex strike reportedly killed 22 people
• International law requires target verification and civilian harm precautions
• UN findings do not establish criminal liability or impose punishment

A UN-mandated independent international fact-finding mission on Iran has concluded there are reasonable grounds to believe the US may have committed war crimes in two air strikes in southern Iran in February 2026.

The mission examined a strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab and another on a sports complex in Lamerd. It said the US appeared to have acted "recklessly" and failed to take feasible steps to verify that the targets were military objectives, says AL Jazeera.

The findings focus on the obligations of parties to an armed conflict under international humanitarian law, including the requirement to distinguish civilian objects from military targets and take feasible precautions to minimise civilian harm.

Strike on Minab school

The Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Hormozgan province was struck on 28 February 2026, at about 10:30 am local time, according to the investigation.

The strike took place during the opening hours of a joint US-Israeli assault. The school was about 72 metres from an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps naval facility, but investigators said it was separated from the facility by a wall and had an independent entrance.

Satellite imagery showed classrooms, a playground and children's murals, according to the findings.

Investigators said the school was hit twice. After the first missile struck the lower floor, staff moved children to an upstairs prayer room. That room was subsequently hit by a second missile.

Iranian officials reported 156 deaths, including 120 children and 26 female teachers. Sources cited by the UN mission put the death toll at 157.

Weapons analysts who examined fragments at the site identified them as coming from a US Tomahawk Land Attack Missile, according to the investigation. Iran did not possess that weapon, the report said, contradicting early attempts by the Trump administration to attribute the strike to Iranian forces.

The UN's human rights machinery had separately raised concerns in July over the 28 February bombing of the Minab girls' school and said it had received information that at least 168 people were killed.

That communication described the victims as almost entirely women and girls and called for investigations into attacks involving civilian casualties.

Strike on Lamerd sports complex

The second strike examined by the mission targeted a sports complex in Lamerd.

Local sports officials and Iranian authorities put the death toll at 22, according to information reviewed by investigators.

The mission's findings on both strikes focus on whether the US took sufficient precautions to establish that the facilities were lawful military targets before attacking them.

International humanitarian law

International humanitarian law requires parties to a conflict to distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives.

The rules also prohibit indiscriminate attacks and require parties to take all feasible precautions to prevent or minimise civilian deaths, injuries and damage to civilian objects.

Those precautions include verifying that a proposed target is a lawful military objective.

A civilian death during a military operation does not automatically constitute a war crime. The legality of an attack depends on the circumstances, including the nature of the target, information available to the attacking force, precautions taken, expected military advantage and anticipated civilian harm.

Human rights lawyer Reed Brody said that while a failure to take required precautions could constitute a violation, not every such violation automatically meets the legal threshold for a war crime.

US rejects findings

The White House rejected the UN findings.

Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly dismissed the UN Human Rights Council as "unserious" and said Iran was the sole party committing war crimes.

She also defended US military action as necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Iran has rejected US denials and cited the two strikes as evidence of attacks on civilians. Iranian officials have called for international accountability over what they describe as crimes against humanity.

Potential legal consequences

The report does not itself establish criminal liability or impose punishment on US personnel. A finding by a UN fact-finding mission is not the same as a criminal judgment by a court.

Any prosecution would face significant jurisdictional and political obstacles.

The US is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, while Iran is also not a state party. The International Court of Justice deals with disputes between states rather than prosecuting individuals, and its jurisdiction depends on the applicable legal basis for a particular case.

The US withdrew its acceptance of the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction under the court's Optional Clause framework in the 1980s, but that does not amount to a general withdrawal from the court itself. The ICJ continues to consider jurisdiction on the basis of specific treaties or other forms of state consent.

Possible accountability measures

The most immediate consequences may therefore be political rather than judicial.

Legal experts cited in the material suggest that pressure from the US Congress could become important if lawmakers seek access to Pentagon investigations or other internal records concerning the strikes.

The issue could also become part of wider international calls for investigations and disclosure of evidence about civilian casualties during the conflict.

For now, the UN mission's findings add to existing international scrutiny of the 28 February attacks. The central legal question is whether US forces failed to meet their obligations to identify lawful military targets and take feasible precautions, and whether any such violations were serious enough to meet the definition of a war crime.