2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran

[deirdre]

Again, google "Rubio backtracks"

i am aware the liberal media is pushing that narrative. and as i said i am personally happy for the misinterpretation. but this is Metabunk, not Propaganda Central. We are supposed to strive to share accurate information.

 

[NoParty]

i am aware the liberal media is pushing that narrative. and as i said i am personally happy for the misinterpretation. but this is Metabunk, not Propaganda Central. We are supposed to strive to share accurate information.

That'll teach me to waste my time. Okay, back to ignoring you. Good luck pushin' that water uphill for the good ol' GOP!

"It is a well-known fact that reality has a liberal bias." Stephen Colbert, 2005 (as blowhard Bill O'Reilly-ish charcter)
https://www.c-span.org/clip/white-h...reality-has-a-well-known-liberal-bias/4916294

 

[Giddierone]

The claim that the US/Israel bombed the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' school in Minab on February 28, 2026 needs it's own thread.
(edited)

 

[NoParty]

The claim that the US/Israel bombed a girls school needs it's own thread.

Although it is clearly part of "2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran"
the fact that the gov seems to be dragging it's feet on telling us what they do & do not know, re. the tragedy of the
Shajareh Tayyebeh girls school, suggests that there may (eventually) be a lot to look at, on this... So, yes, agreed.

 

[John J.]

Then the problem of keeping the population of Iran from starving

Why would there be famine in Iran if it were occupied?
(I agree that an opposed occupation would be ghastly, with a steady flow of casualties).

 

[deirdre]

Although it is clearly part of "2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran"

current events threads arent really meant for analyzing. separate issues or debunks should always go in seperate threads. have you forgotten that?

 

[deirdre]

Good luck pushin' that water uphill for the good ol' GOP!

you're just mad you got caught believing Trump.

 

[Ann K]

The "right" did not post that.

I think you are saying (carelessly) "the American right did not post that".

Here, to complicate matters, is a screen grab of a post on "X" that claims to know who "Nioh Berg" is. I haven't verified it.

 

[deirdre]

I think you are saying (carelessly) "the American right did not post that".

i think i am responding to the context of No Parties actual posts attached to my response.

I do see and appreciate @NoParty editing his initial post to add a disclaimer.

is a screen grab of a post on "X" that claims to know who "Nioh Berg" is.

she is suspiciously pretty. regardless your screengrab doesnt make the poster "the right".

 

[JMartJr]

Why do you all of a sudden take Trump at his word? You think Trump is giving you the truth here and Rubio is the one sugar-coating?!?!

I thought you think Trump lies all the time. No? But then you claim I'm "sane-washing" for "ignoring Trump's crazy shit"? You can't have it both ways.

FWIW, my take on this is not that one or the other of them is lying, or wrong, or exaggerating -- it is that the administration as a whole does not have a defined position, nor any clear understanding of what its goals are in attacking Iran, nor on why they did it.

In normal administrations, the folks at the top would have had meetings on this in which pros and cons were argued, then everybody got on the same page, an official position was reached and the President would then order whatever action was to be carried out with everybody understanding what was being done and why. That does not seem to be the case here, given that there is no agreement among the leadership in the current US regime as to why the attack was launched, nor what the goals are that would define success.

Compared to past administrations, of either party, this is amateur hour.

 

[fizzBuzz]

Now I remember why I needed to stop wasting time, responding to your posts!

First, google "Rubio backtracks" to see that virtually everyone realizes that he changed his position radically after Trump contradicted him.
So, when you say: "I trust Rubio's words on things like this," are you saying you trust Monday Rubio (3/2) or Tuesday Rubio (3/3)?

Secondly, your attempted straw man, claiming that somehow my post could--in some alternate universe--be interpreted to mean that I
"all of a sudden take Trump at his word" is beyond absurd. Trump does exaggerate almost everything, and he also lies and gaslights
(blatantly & so incompetently that his lies are revealed every day!) constantly. Saying whatever he thinks will improve his image is his
default mode...truth is entirely unimportant, relative to flogging his fragile ego. I would be genuinely surprised if he has any grasp of the truth, at this point...as it absolutely never matters to him. That he has already given 6 or 8 conflicting (and, in some cases, mutually exclusive)
"explanations" for starting this war of choice, is 100% proof that some, most or all of the excuses are false.

Rubio trying to clean up Trump's lies may've fooled some dim MAGAs, but I immediately predicted that it would make Rubio look like a fool,
because Trump would almost certainly go off-script soon. And guess what? Yep! Almost immediately Trump contradicted Rubio,
forcing lil' Marco not only to awkwardly try to revise his Monday pronouncements, to fit Trump's contradictions, and then,
of course, because it's this trash Trump Administration, to try to gaslight the American people into believing that his new (Tuesday)
position was actually not new. [see video]

Again, google "Rubio backtracks" and tell us which of his positions it is that you find credible...and why not the other.
(first 32 seconds is all you need of this clip...notice Rubio tries to "Where you there?" the reporter...but, D'oh!! it was same reporter!!)

Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/B18ZBHcm2Eo

Rubio very clearly explained the situation yesterday. He said this is a question of timing, not of intent. The US was going to strike Iran regardless of what Israel did. Israel striking first affected the timing of when the US struck Iran. In the 3/2 presser, Rubio was talking about the timing of the strike, not the intent to strike. But, unsurprisingly, the clip you provided cuts Rubio short. Shocker. I suggest you watch the full clip.

Rubio's 3/3 press conference (3:29 - 4:34)

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, yesterday you told us that Israel was going to strike Iran and that that's why we needed to get involved. Today the President said that —

SECRETARY RUBIO: No.

QUESTION: — Iran was going to get —

SECRETARY RUBIO: Yeah, your statement's false. So that's not what he – I was asked very specifically – were you there yesterday?

QUESTION: Yes. I asked a question.

SECRETARY RUBIO: Okay. No, did – were you the one that – because somebody asked me a question yesterday – did we go in because of Israel. And I said – you asked me that, you, that follow up. And I said no. I told you this had to happen anyway. The President made a decision, and the decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ballistic missile program, that Iran was not going to be allowed behind its ability to conduct these attacks. That decision had been made. The President systemically – made a decision to systematically destroy this terroristic capability that they had, and we carried that out. I was very clear in that answer. This was a question of timing, of why this had to happen as a joint operation, not the question of the intent. Once the President made a decision that negotiations were not going to work, that they were playing us on the negotiations, and that this was a threat that was untenable, the decision was made to strike them.

That's what I said yesterday, and you guys need to play it. And if you're going to play these statements, you need to play the whole statement, not clip it to reach a narrative that you want to do. All right?​

Source: https://youtu.be/FuCkP2LnmJs?si=FGyg-PmDkrNeXxEp&t=209


Quite funny how he ends his statement with this, isn't it?

you need to play the whole statement, not clip it to reach a narrative that you want to do.

 

[fizzBuzz]

FWIW, my take on this is not that one or the other of them is lying, or wrong, or exaggerating -- it is that the administration as a whole does not have a defined position, nor any clear understanding of what its goals are in attacking Iran, nor on why they did it.

I whole-heartedly disagree with this. Both Rubio and Hegseth have been very clear and unwavering about what the mission is. Just watch their full press conferences. Not clips.

In normal administrations, the folks at the top would have had meetings on this in which pros and cons were argued, then everybody got on the same page, an official position was reached and the President would then order whatever action was to be carried out with everybody understanding what was being done and why. That does not seem to be the case here, given that there is no agreement among the leadership in the current US regime as to why the attack was launched, nor what the goals are that would define success.

??? It really seems like you haven't watched Rubio and Hegseth's press confrerences.

These are quotes from the two of them in recent days:

HEGSETH: The mission of Operation Epic Fury is laser-focused: Destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their navy and other security infrastructure and they will never have nuclear weapons.

HEGSETH: This operation is a clear, devastating, decisive mission: destroy the missile threat, destroy the navy, no nukes

RUBIO: The United States is conducting an operation to eliminate the threat of Iran's short-range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their navy, particularly to naval assets. That is what it is focused on doing right now and it's doing quite successfully.

RUBIO: Number one is our mission and our focus is the destruction of their ballistic missile capabilities and their ability to manufacture them, as well as the threat posed by their navy to global shipping. That's our objective.

That said, we would not mind, we would not be heartbroken, and we hope that the Iranian people can overthrow this government and establish a new future for that country. We would love for that to be possible. But the objective of this mission is the destruction of their ballistic missile capabilities and of their naval capabilities.

That's just a handful I've found, there may be more. Can you post links to comments that you think have caused confusion?

 

[NoParty]

Rubio very clearly explained the situation yesterday. He said this is a question of timing, not of intent. The US was going to strike Iran regardless of what Israel did. Israel striking first affected the timing of when the US struck Iran. In the 3/2 presser, Rubio was talking about the timing of the strike, not the intent to strike. But, unsurprisingly, the clip you provided cuts Rubio short. Shocker. I suggest you watch the full clip.

Rubio's 3/3 press conference (3:29 - 4:34)


Source: https://youtu.be/FuCkP2LnmJs?si=FGyg-PmDkrNeXxEp&t=209


Quite funny how he ends his statement this, isn't it?

No, where it cuts off makes no difference.
I clearly stated "...lil' Marco not only to awkwardly try to revise his Monday pronouncements, to fit Trump's contradictions, and then,
of course, because it's this trash Trump Administration, to try to gaslight the American people into believing that his new (Tuesday)
position was actually not new." So you're saying that he successfully gaslit you.
That's fine. But not me, and not most, and that's why "Rubio backtracks" was such a common headline. Listening to more of his
attempted fix, does not make him credible. Especially after Trump so clearly contradicted him. Okay, I'm done engaging you...

 

[fizzBuzz]

No, where it cuts off makes no difference.
I clearly stated "...lil' Marco not only to awkwardly try to revise his Monday pronouncements, to fit Trump's contradictions, and then,
of course, because it's this trash Trump Administration, to try to gaslight the American people into believing that his new (Tuesday)
position was actually not new." So you're saying that he successfully gaslit you.
That's fine. But not me, and not most, and that's why "Rubio backtracks" was such a common headline. Listening to more of his
attempted fix, does not make him credible. Especially after Trump so clearly contradicted him. Okay, I'm done engaging you...

He didn't backtrack. I take this as you were gaslit by headlines. We were always going to strike Iran. Israel affected the timing of when we did that. I'm sorry if this is incomprehensible to you.

To further hit home the fact you're wrong, in the clip you provide, the 3/2 part was clipped to not include the words he said just prior. This is Rubio's full opening statement from 3/2:

The United States conducted this operation with a very clear goal in mind. I haven't gotten a chance to see a lot of reporting. I don't understand what the confusion is. Let me explain it to you, and I'll do it once again as clearly as possible. Perhaps you'll report it that way.

The United States is conducting an operation to eliminate the threat of Iran's short-range ballistic missiles and the threat posed by their navy, particularly to naval assets. That is what it is focused on doing right now and it's doing quite successfully. I'll leave it to the Pentagon and the Department of War to discuss the tactics behind that and the progress that's being made. That is the clear objective of this mission.

The second question I've been asked is: Why now? Well, there's two reasons why now. The first is it was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States. The orders had been delegated down to the field commanders. It was automatic, and in fact it beared to be true because, in fact, the – within an hour of the initial attack on the leadership compound, the missile forces in the south and in the north for that matter had already been activated to launch. In fact, those had already been pre-positioned.

The third is the assessment that was made that if we stood and waited for that attack to come first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties. And so the President made the very wise decision. We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed, and then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn't act.

Going back to the purpose, the purpose of this is to destroy that missile capability. Why does Iran want that ballistic missile capability? What they are trying to do and have been trying to do for a very long time is build a conventional weapons capability as a shield where they can hide behind, meaning there would come a point where they have so many conventional missiles, so many drones, and can inflict so much damage, that no one can do anything about their nuclear program. That is what they were trying to do, is put themselves in a place of immunity where the damage they can inflict on the region would be so high that no one can do anything about their nuclear program or their nuclear ambitions.

They are producing, by some estimates, over 100 of these missiles a month. Compare that to the six or seven interceptors that can be built a month. They can build a hundred of these a month, not to mention the thousands of one-way attack drones that they also have. They've been doing this for a very long time. And by the way, they've been doing it under sanction. You see the attacks they're conducting right now. They're attacking airports. They're attacking hotels. They are hitting, not just military bases; they're attacking our embassies directly. They're attacking facilities that have nothing to do with war or with military.

And that's a weakened Iran. That's an Iran despite years of sanction. Imagine a year from now or a year and a half from now the capabilities they would have to inflict damage on us. It's an unacceptable risk, especially in the hands of a regime that's run by radical clerics. The ayatollah is a radical – was a radical cleric. That entire regime is led by radical clerics who don't make geopolitical decisions; they make decisions on the basis of theology – their view of theology, which is an apocalyptic one. That has to be taken very seriously as well.

So that was the purpose for what this operation is all about. That's what it's focused on. As the President said earlier today, it is on or ahead of schedule. I will defer to the Department of War to discuss the progress being made at a tactical level. But it was the right decision and an important decision for the safety and security of the world.

Rubio also said this on 3/2:

QUESTION: Are you saying the U.S. was forced to strike because of an impending Israeli action?

SECRETARY RUBIO: No, first – well, two things I would say. Number one is: no matter what, ultimately this operation needed to happen. That's the question of why now. But this operation needed to happen because Iran in about a year or a year and a half would cross the line of immunity, meaning they would have so many short-range missiles, so many drones, that no one could do anything about it because they could hold the whole world hostage.

Look at the damage they're doing now. And this is a weakened Iran. Imagine a year from now. So that had to happen. Obviously, we were aware of Israeli intentions and understood what that would mean for us, and we had to be prepared to act as a result of it. But this had to happen no matter what.

Anyone who thinks he "backtracked" on 3/3 is making things up. He talks about the timing in both the 3/2 and 3/3 press conferences, and he talks about the intent in both the 3/2 and 3/3 press conferences. Why this is so confusing to you all, I have no clue.

 

[Giddierone]

Rubio backtracks

Can anyone trust Marco Rubio? He's been completely, and shamelessly, inconsistent.
For a comprehensive look (too much to quote here) at how Rubio has changed his deeply held convictions on foreign affairs, like Russia and Ukraine, see this list of bills he sponsored and remarks he made about the conflict before becoming Secretary of State, and then compare them to the current situation and the reversal of sentiment — where the administation is no longer taking any actions to condem or punish the invaders. The fact is that this administration no longer even bothers to condemn the daily killing of civilians in by Russian drone attacks and will likely do the same when more civilians inevitably die in this new war.

https://daviscenter.fas.harvard.edu/insights/marco-rubio-russia-and-ukraine

 

[NoParty]

Maybe the Trump Administration really does have an actual plan, but it's soooooo good, that to reveal it, would be dangerous!
Think: The scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark, in which the Ark (Trump's Secret Exit Plan, here) is opened & everyone's faces melt.

Republicans would totally believe this, as they believed Trump had a double-secret health plan, that would only be revealed if folks
could be conned convinced to "Repeal & Replace" the Affordable Care Act. Beginning in 2015, Trump told them the secret plan
would be revealed in "two weeks" dozens of times...and after nine years of that, it was somehow lesser in late 2024,
becoming, meekly, "concepts of a plan" [1:30 in vid] in the debate he lost to VP Harris. As with the fictional health plan, the main
reason people keep asking--but not getting--answers to "the Plan" re. Iran question...is because obviously no plan actually exists.
This is why Trump has said 6 or 8 different things (so far...there will probably be more). Obviously they could "Put up or shut up"
to counter the skeptics...but it seems like they don't even have "concepts of a plan" in Iran, in 2026.

[p.s. Many times Trump said that the secret plan was done, complete! But here, years later (2024) he admits:
"If we can come up with a plan..." [1:13 in] unintentionally admitting that his public claims of a "finished" plan, were pure lies]


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p6zZZ3DPGE

 

[deirdre]

The fact is that this administration no longer even bothers to condemn the daily killing of civilians in by Russian drone attacks

to be fair, neither does our main stream media really.

i just scrolled 15 pages of google search (time frame: 1 year) and -as far as amrican media-in jan/feb we've got the "yearly totals" of casualties articles (pbs, npr, la times, bloomberg, cnn, reuters, detroit catholic,) and articles on individual attacks Cbs nov 2025, AP News aug 1, Pbs june 24 and NBC june 4th with the headline "1 million russian troops killed or wounded".

that's it.

 

[deirdre]

Maybe the Trump Administration really does have an actual plan, but it's soooooo good, that to reveal it, would be dangerous!

Hegseth and some military general just gave a break down this morning with maps and laser pointers and stuff. They certainly have a military plan about which targets they want to take out.

If you mean 'do they have a plan for the people of Iran after Mission Accomplished'.. everyone from Trump on down has been pretty clear the answer is "no". The iranians can figure it out.

 

[MapperGuy]

Why would there be famine in Iran if it were occupied?
(I agree that an opposed occupation would be ghastly, with a steady flow of casualties).

Occupation imposes many restrictions on the people being occupied. Their ability to move about (checkpoints, ID checks, searches for weapons, etc.), their ability to buy/sell to foreign sources of food. Uncertainty also leads a population to hoard their resources, like food, because you don't know if you will be able to buy any tomorrow. Prices fluctuations also cause hoarding, because if prices soar you can get rich selling hoarded food. Fuel shortages, electric outages, lockdowns because of terrorist/freedom fighter attacks, fear of moving in public in general all increase the difficulty of keeping food on the table.

 

[NoParty]

I am not happy that ~2.5 days after the horrific slaughter (140-175 mostly school girls) at the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls school,
our government is saying virtually nothing about whether or not they (or their co-attackers, Israel) did it.

ETA: Link to USA Today asking same thing...
"The Pentagon says it is reviewing the incident, but so far it has not publicly committed
to a formal investigation, disciplinary action or other accountability measures."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...chool-attack-human-rights-groups/88949676007/

Unfortunately, it looks more and more like it was a US strike that killed all those little girls. There are foreign factions who believe we did
it on purpose, but I'm personally not that cynical. But it does seem to have been a reckless, easily avoidable mistake. Probably
just not checking that very very old maps were still accurate. Contradicting Hegseth's etc. claims that we're doing everything
to avoid killing innocent civilians. And now we're asked to believe that PBS can figure out who was responsible, before our
best-in-the-world military can. Fortunately for the Trump administration, the press seems barely interested, thus far.
Maybe the plan is to just stall addressing it, until everyone forgets it, distracted by the next outrage. I don't think this will go away.

https://www.npr.org/2026/03/04/nx-s...school-was-more-extensive-than-first-reported

"Three independent experts confirmed NPR's analysis of the additional strike points.



The strike points "look like pretty clean detonation centroids," said Corey Scher,
a postdoctoral researcher at the Conflict Ecology laboratory at Oregon State University.

"These certainly appear like detonation sites," agreed Scher's colleague, Oregon State associate professor Jamon Van Den Hoek.

Jeffrey Lewis, a professor at Middlebury College who specializes in satellite imagery, said the imagery was consistent with a precision airstrike.

The images show "very precise targeting," Lewis told NPR. "Almost all the buildings [in the compound] are hit."

I have mocked the Trump Administration's lack of transparency (made even worse, by gaslighting that they are the most transparent, ever)...
and this is why: About 175 innocents dead, no answers from our government...

 

[deirdre]

it was a US strike that killed all those little girls.

what part of your quotes say it was the united states?

 

[Mendel]

FWIW, my take on this is not that one or the other of them is lying, or wrong, or exaggerating -- it is that the administration as a whole does not have a defined position, nor any clear understanding of what its goals are in attacking Iran, nor on why they did it.

In normal administrations, the folks at the top would have had meetings on this in which pros and cons were argued, then everybody got on the same page, an official position was reached and the President would then order whatever action was to be carried out with everybody understanding what was being done and why. That does not seem to be the case here, given that there is no agreement among the leadership in the current US regime as to why the attack was launched, nor what the goals are that would define success.

Compared to past administrations, of either party, this is amateur hour.

I'm assuming that the joint chiefs of staff and Marco Rubio (and maybe Hegseth) got together and had that discussion and made the plan that was then executed.
And then there were people tasked with explaining this plan to Donald Trump, who, given past performance, understood only half of it, forgot half of it before he talked to the press/social media, and then made the rest up. Since the Supreme Leader's word is The Truth, after Trump pronounces something, his underlings (incl. Rubio) need to fall in line, and must appear to never have been out of line, to avoid falling out of favor with Trump.
Because of that, I would trust Monday Rubio over Tuesday Rubio, because Monday Rubio still acted as if truth was something we all share, instead of something defined by the Supreme Leader.

The fact that the USSR's lead propaganda vehicle, Pravda, means "truth", and that Trump dubbed his "truth social", is beyond ironic at this point.

 

[NoParty]

...the press seems barely interested, thus far.

I have mocked the Trump Administration's lack of transparency (made even worse, by gaslighting that they are the most transparent, ever)...
and this is why: About 175 innocents dead, no answers from our government...

Well, it looks like PBS's work (arguing convincingly that it was a precise, high level targeting) has finally nudged the press to take some interest:

3/4/26 Reporter, to Karoline Leavitt: "Did the United States air strike a girls elementary school and kill 175 people?"
Leavitt : "Not that we know of ...I would just tell you very strongly that the United States of America does not target civilians..."

Add this to Hegseth & Rubio, etc., making extremely similar carefully-worded responses, that stress that we wouldn't do it on purpose,
but very, very notably not denying that we killed those little girls. The other possible malefactor, Israel, by contrast, has said they know
nothing about it. Our team has skipped denying that we did it, and is on to, essentially:
"...but we have strict policies against doing that sort of thing on purpose." That's why I said an hour ago, it's looking more & more like us.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1590382452176981

 

[deirdre]

PBS's work (arguing convincingly that it was a precise, high level targeting) has finally nudged the press to take some interest

actually every question and answer thingi've seen, ive heard the press has asked about it. They arent reporting on it because there is nothing to report yet.
Maybe the EU or UN can go over there and go to the bomb site and check the bomb debris. to confirm it was us. (or we can wait until the guys we need to get info from aren't so busy fighting a military operation).

 

[NoParty]

3/4/26 Reporter, to Karoline Leavitt: "Did the United States air strike a girls elementary school and kill 175 people?"
Leavitt : "Not that we know of ...I would just tell you very strongly that the United States of America does not target civilians..."

If it turns out that we were responsible for the bombing of those children, we really, really need to know what evidence we were looking
at, and when. Personally, with all of our high tech cameras, etc., I think that we likely knew who was responsible the day it happened.
So for Leavitt to stand there and say we don't know, all these days later, because the answer is damning & embarrasing,
is just not acceptable for a public servant on the taxpayer dime.

As a former philosophy major, as she was speaking, I was picturing her later--when called out--saying:
"Well, can we really ever truly know anything?" in some sort of Cartesian cogito mindf*ck...
"We were only 99.9666% sure, when I was answering the question, soooooooo, I didn't technically lie to the American people, right?"

 

[Gary C]

@NoParty - Given SecDUI Hegseth's open distain for anyone who isn't a "warrior" and the chaos he's caused by arbitrarily removing anyone who isn't a straight white male from any position of importance, there is zero chance he will admit that any of his warriors did anything improper. This will get buried by whatever scandal inevitably follows in 47's clown show of an administration.

But to the point, someone circled the wrong building on a computer screen, that data got sent to a tactical squadron as part of a target package, those coordinates were loaded into the guidance system of a JDAM, a pilot flew to the coordinates he was given and pushed a button when it was scheduled to be pushed. Whoever should have cross checked the data could have been anywhere in chain back to when NRO first acquired the satellite image.

As the applicable manual states, "Proper database management is necessary for effective targeting. The Joint Targeting. Toolbox (JTT) is the tool of record for the joint targeting community."

free download, your tax dollars at work - https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_3-60/3-60-AFDP-TARGETING.pdf

 

[deirdre]

If it turns out that we were responsible for the bombing of those children, we really, really need to know what evidence we were looking
at, and when.

which is why we need an independent investigation.

 

[NoParty]

@NoParty - ...there is zero chance he will admit that any of his warriors did anything improper. This will get buried by whatever scandal inevitably follows in 47's clown show of an administration.

I don't know. Most Americans were already in the "No new wars" camp...and I don't think they're gonna warm up to the Iran War
much, if they realize that our "leaders" will recklessly kill young girls, AND bend the truth into a pretzel to keep us from knowing about it.

@NoParty - ...someone circled the wrong building on a computer screen, that data got sent to a tactical squadron as part of a target package, those coordinates were loaded into the guidance system of a JDAM, a pilot flew to the coordinates he was given and pushed a button when it was scheduled to be pushed. Whoever should have cross checked the data could have been anywhere in chain back to when NRO first acquired the satellite image.

As the applicable manual states, "Proper database management is necessary for effective targeting. The Joint Targeting. Toolbox (JTT) is the tool of record for the joint targeting community."

Well, Ima take your word on that: I'm in no position to confirm or deny that!

My simple take is that the school was connected to something that probably was a legit target at one time. And no one took the time to
take the school area off the target list, later. But it seems that we always knew it was a school, so we have negligence at a criminal level.
But since the school buildings were individually hit with "precision," I'm guessing that our military is going to argue that enemy combatants
were using the school as a shield, and thus it was legally in play, and that's why it was targeted. The problem is that the supposed bad guys
we were trying to hit, hadn't been there in years. And we didn't bother to double check that. Lots of guessing on my part...on very incomplete evidence...but it's what it looks like to me on 3/4.

 

[Mendel]

I don't know. Most Americans were already in the "No new wars" camp...and I don't think they're gonna warm up to the Iran War much, if they realize that our "leaders" will recklessly kill young girls, AND bend the truth into a pretzel to keep us from knowing about it.

There's a meme about that.

Spoiler: bonus meme

But since the school buildings were individually hit with "precision," I'm guessing that our military is going to argue that enemy combatants were using the school as a shield, and thus it was legally in play, and that's why it was targeted.

"There are tunnels under the school." Probably.

 

[NoParty]

There's a meme about that.
View attachment 88920

Spoiler: bonus meme

View attachment 88919

"There are tunnels under the school." Probably.

Oh, yeah...tunnels are always good!

 

[MapperGuy]

The strike points "look like pretty clean detonation centroids," said Corey Scher,
a postdoctoral researcher at the Conflict Ecology laboratory at Oregon State University.

"These certainly appear like detonation sites," agreed Scher's colleague, Oregon State associate professor Jamon Van Den Hoek.

Jeffrey Lewis, a professor at Middlebury College who specializes in satellite imagery, said the imagery was consistent with a precision airstrike.

The images show "very precise targeting," Lewis told NPR. "Almost all the buildings [in the compound] are hit."

The school and clinic buildings were deliberately targeted, pretty obvious.
Looking at the before photo that was originally one compound, the road pattern tells you that. But there is a wall crossing the branch toward the school built later.
Outdated target package. Nobody noticed the repurposing of parts of the original base.

 

[NoParty]

The school and clinic buildings were deliberately targeted, pretty obvious.
Looking at the before photo that was originally one compound, the road pattern tells you that. But there is a wall crossing the branch toward the school built later.
Outdated target package. Nobody noticed the repurposing of parts of the original base.

Agree completely. But you know there's a school there. You HAVE to triple check your target package
(they can't claim they didn't have time: they slow walked this attack for months, and pounded the school on Day One). Heads should roll.

The most plausible reason I can think of for a five day stall on facts, is that coming up with a decent excuse is gonna be super hard...

 

[Gary C]

Not what I was expecting:

Kuwaiti F/A-18 Hornet Responsible For Shooting Down Three USAF F-15E Strike Eagles: [unconfirmed] Report

Seligman's story is based on three sources "familiar with initial reports of the incident." Just one Hornet was supposedly involved, launching three missiles and taking down the three Strike Eagles. Thankfully, the crews all survived. The report goes on to state that the 'blue-on-blue' incident occurred as multiple Iranian drones were penetrating Kuwaiti airspace. One of these impacted a base that resulted in the death of six Americans.

https://www.twz.com/news-features/k...ng-down-three-usaf-f-15e-strike-eagles-report

This actually makes more sense as a pilot who thinks he's looking at a drone has far fewer system safeguards in place to prevent a friendly fire incident. Still, I imagine several procedures were violated if this is how it really went down.

 

[MapperGuy]

Agree completely. But you know there's a school there. You HAVE to triple check your target package
(they can't claim they didn't have time: they slow walked this attack for months, and pounded the school on Day One). Heads should roll.

The most plausible reason I can think of for a five day stall on facts, is that coming up with a decent excuse is gonna be super hard...

Unfortunately this administration has been looking in many directions all at once and changing focus on a whim.
There are many different places the military is always getting ready to fight. Guarantee you there are people updating targets in Cuba at this moment.

There are only so many analysts to work all these different tasks. And priorities as well, at the moment we seem to be hitting every single known target in Iran, including those that would have been on the bottom end of the priority list for updates.

 

[Giddierone]

coming up with a decent excuse is gonna be super hard...

There's lots of useful information here https://www.snopes.com/news/2026/03/03/iran-girls-school-missile-attack/ about the unproven claim that it was somehow caused by the Irianians themselves.

 

[Mendel]

There's lots of useful information here https://www.snopes.com/news/2026/03/03/iran-girls-school-missile-attack/ about the unproven claim that it was somehow caused by the Irianians themselves.

Was the school near an Iranian military site?
Reports from New Lines Magazine and Al Jazeera English determined that the girls' school was next to an IRGC base on Resalat Boulevard in Minab. An Al Jazeera report said the school had been "clearly separate" from the adjacent military site for at least 10 years and its targeting was "deliberate."

Based on verified footage of smoke plumes rising from the base, The New York Times reported that the military site had been targeted by U.S. and Israeli missiles on Feb. 28, the same day the girls' school was hit by a missile. The Times reported that 2013 satellite images showed that the school building was part of the base at one point but by September 2016 had been walled off.

Satellite images we looked at from 2017 onward on Google Earth indicated that walls had been built around the school. As noted in New Lines Magazine's reporting, a Google Earth satellite image from 2018 shows walls painted in bright colors, indicating a school building:

This hits close to home because we have a lot of repurposed ex-military buildings in Germany, thanks to the cold war ending. With Iraq conquered, I expect Iran may have scaled down their military as well?

 

[Gary C]

There's lots of useful information here https://www.snopes.com/news/2026/03/03/iran-girls-school-missile-attack/ about the unproven claim that it was somehow caused by the Irianians themselves.

For an Iranian missile to have coincidentally struck the exact center of the school which just happened to be adjacent to six other US/IDF weapons impacts seems grossly unlikely. The warhead of an S-300 surface-to-air missile (SAM) at about 150kg is less than half the size of common US manufactured air delivered ordinance. I would be unwilling accept anyone saying exactly what munition did hit the school who did not have direct physical access needed to conduct a crater analysis. Looking at the entire site, I would expect unitary munitions in the ~500 kg class were used. That's consistent with multiple types of US/IDF attack aircraft.