More than a hundred children were killed at Minab school. Why won't the US acknowledge the attack?

Who carried out the missile strike that hit a primary school in Minab, Iran, killing more than 150 civilians, including around 120 children?

For weeks, journalists have repeatedly asked senior American officials for clarity. Questions have been put to military spokespeople, White House officials and President Donald Trump himself. Each time, the answers have been evasive, contradictory or incomplete.

The strange part is that most investigators already believe they know exactly what happened.

According to reporting from outlets including The New York Times, the BBC, Al Jazeera and the investigative group Bellingcat, the strike was almost certainly carried out by the United States.

Washington, however, still refuses to publicly admit responsibility.

The strike

To understand the controversy, it is important to understand where the school was located.

The building stood only a few hundred metres from a facility operated by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC. Military analysts say the compound functioned as a communications and logistics centre and would likely have been considered a legitimate military target during the opening phase of the conflict.

The problem is what happened alongside that strike.

The attack took place on the first day of the war. In the middle of ongoing diplomatic talks, the United States launched a sudden large-scale assault against Iranian military infrastructure.

At approximately 9:40am on 28 February, cruise missiles struck radar installations while bombs dropped by American and Israeli aircraft destroyed air defence systems and IRGC facilities across Iran.

Roughly an hour later, a military base near Minab was hit.

At some point during the attacks, children at the school were reportedly instructed to shelter inside a prayer hall while waiting for parents to collect them. Then the explosion hit.

The evidence

Investigators say the evidence pointing towards American responsibility is extensive.

Modern warfare leaves behind an enormous amount of forensic data, and analysts were able to reconstruct the attack using missile fragments, radar tracking, launch timing, satellite imagery, acoustic analysis and dozens of videos posted online.

The most significant evidence was the missile debris recovered from the scene.

Several independent analysts identified fragments consistent with a Tomahawk cruise missile, a weapon operated by the United States Navy.

Footage posted online showed another Tomahawk missile striking the nearby IRGC compound during the same attack window, while Israel publicly stated that it was not operating in the area at the time.

Initially, American officials blamed Iran itself for the explosion. Later, some suggested unnamed regional actors might have been responsible. Eventually, the White House settled on a more familiar response: that an investigation was ongoing.

Playing for time

If the evidence appears so overwhelming, why does Washington still refuse to openly acknowledge what happened?

The answer is political.

Outside the United States, many governments, analysts and observers have already reached their conclusions. Domestically, however, the calculation is very different.

As long as the administration refuses to confirm responsibility, supporters can continue dismissing reports of American involvement as propaganda, misinformation or hostile narratives pushed by Iran.

Without an official admission, there is no definitive political reckoning.

For now, at least.

That strategy, however, may not be sustainable indefinitely.

Pressure is already growing in Congress. Human rights organisations are demanding transparency, while international investigators continue collecting evidence.

If casualty estimates are accurate, the attack would represent the deadliest killing of civilians by a single American airstrike since the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.

That is not the sort of event likely to disappear quietly.

The political calculation

Timing is central to the administration’s approach.

From the White House perspective, admitting responsibility while the war is still ongoing could be politically catastrophic. Admitting it afterwards may be survivable, particularly if the administration can argue the conflict achieved a historic strategic success.

Officials are expected to frame the war as having prevented a wider regional conflict and stopped Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Under that argument, the deaths in Minab could then be presented not as meaningless, but as the tragic cost of a necessary victory.

The political optics are very different.

More than 100 children killed during an open-ended and inconclusive war would provoke outrage. More than 100 children killed during a conflict later presented as preventing nuclear war is a narrative the administration may believe the American public is more willing to accept, especially when the victims were Iranian rather than American.

That is why the investigation appears stalled.

Not abandoned. Delayed.

Waiting for a moment when the truth becomes politically manageable.World Reframed episode 41.

World Reframed is produced in London by Global South World, part of the Impactum Group. Its editors are Duncan Hooper and Ismail Akwei.

ISSN 2978-4891