The US missile strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh primary and girls’ elementary school in Minab in southern Iran on the first day of the war on February 28 resulted in 168 casualties, predominantly schoolgirls between the ages of 7 and 12, while many more were wounded. Iran released especially selected images for Western audiences, which included smiling children, classrooms and satchels, highlighting the innocence of school children, winning global sympathy. It resulted in the US facing criticism from all corners of the world. The UN Education Agency termed it as ‘violation of human rights’ while the UN Secretary General condemned it.
The US military was pushed onto the defensive. Trump attempted to blame Iran, but was forced to subsequently admit it was a US strike gone wrong. The Pentagon ordered an inquiry, which continues even today, while former US military officials accuse the Pentagon of not accepting responsibility. The delay in completing the inquiry only sends the message that the US government is attempting a cover-up.
Iran did not let the matter rest and continued the pressure. Its delegation, which went to Pakistan for the first round of talks, called themselves ‘Minab 168’ in memory of the killed children. Their aircraft had blood-stained backpacks, shoes and personal belongings of these children. This rekindled global sympathy. Even Iran’s soccer team, participating in the FIFA World Cup, arrived in Mexico wearing gold lapel pins marked ‘#168’.
Iran may demand compensation on behalf of those killed in the US strike on a girls’ school, killing 168 children. The fact that the US is still investigating implies that, in case it admits, it would be liable for compensation. Iran has played its narrative successfully, pushing the US on the back foot
The aircraft, carrying the Iranian delegation travelling for the first round of peace talks in Switzerland, was named #Minab 168. The head of the Iranian team, parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, wrote on X, “I consider the innocent children of Minab and all the martyrs of dear Iran to be watching over my every action and behaviour at every moment. They see us and expect things of us.” Iran will not let the world forget the US strike.
Such has been the impact of Iran’s regular highlighting of the incident that President Trump was questioned on it during his G7 press conference. He said, “War is a terrible thing. No one intentionally does something like that (bombing a school).” He added that an inquiry was in progress. Europe as a community criticised the US attack on the Minab school, indicating Iran’s narratives were more successful than the US attempt to cover up the incident. This, like the My Lai shooting in Vietnam, will haunt the US military for decades.
This is not the first time that US aerial strikes have gone wrong. In March 2011, a US drone strike killed over 40 civilians in Pakistan’s Waziristan province. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) mentions that over 4,000 civilians were killed in international aerial operations (largely US-led) between 2016 and 2020 in Afghanistan. A notable incident was the bombing of the Médecins Sans Frontières hospital in Afghanistan, which resulted in 42 deaths. However, none of these incidents were exploited as Iran has done to damage the US reputation.
The US painted Iran as a nation on the verge of gaining nuclear weapons, which could threaten Israel and the neighbourhood, but failed to garner support. Further, Iran was willing to surrender its enriched nuclear material while promising not to seek nuclear weapons, in talks, before the attack
The only case where the US was forced to apologise was the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in May 1999, resulting in the deaths of three journalists and injuring 27. The US Under Secretary of State was sent to China with a formal apology as a personal envoy of President Clinton. The US also paid $28 million in compensation to China. This was because China created a stink, leaving the US with almost no choice.
It is quite likely that Iran will, in the long term, demand compensation on behalf of those killed in this strike. The fact that the US is still investigating implies that, in case it admits, it would be liable for compensation. Iran has played its narrative successfully, pushing the US on the back foot.
Throughout the conflict, there were opposing narratives. The US painted Iran as a nation on the verge of gaining nuclear weapons, which could threaten Israel and the neighbourhood. It failed to garner support because Israel was already facing global anger over its mishandling of Gaza. Further, Iran was not a threat to the US, as also willing to surrender its enriched nuclear material while promising not to seek nuclear weapons, in talks, before the attack. For Trump, failure to gain support for the war from his own public, leading to a drop in popularity ratings, was one of the reasons to seek an early exit.
The fact that European nations refused permission to the US to utilise their airspace for attacking Iran or even supplying weapons to Israel indicated that US narratives failed even with its close allies. Iran’s narratives were considered more acceptable
On the other hand, Iran considers itself David fighting Goliath. The killing of Ayatollah Khamenei and most of his cabinet on the first day of the conflict, in an airstrike, was projected as martyrdom, winning local backing. To continue garnering support from its population, the Iranian government has planned a public-led funeral for the Ayatollah from July 4 to 9. They expect about 20 million to participate in Tehran alone.
The world tends to stand with the oppressed against the powerful. Hence, sympathy flowed towards Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War and Iran in this conflict. Iran exploited AI to highlight its ability to withstand US air power, considered the most formidable on the planet, as well as the damage within Israel. Israel and Middle East nations banned their public from posting pictures of destruction caused by Iranian missile and drone strikes, though these continued to emerge. The US was blamed for the closure of Hormuz rather than Iran, as Tehran claimed it was being unfairly targeted.
Benefitting Iran in its narrative game was Trump’s continuous ranting on his Truth Social site and his contradictory comments to the media. His almost 40 claims of victory and destruction of Iranian military power stood against reality on the ground as Iran refused to bend. Every time Trump announced that Iran was desperate to sign an agreement, Iran denied. Such was the failure of Trump’s narrative that acronyms like TACO (Trump Always Chicken’s Out) and NACHO (Not a Chance Hormuz Opens) gained traction in the US.
Iran’s opposition groups protested against a collapsing economy and food shortages, but backtracked when it came to supporting the US and Israel. Iranians stood unarmed around vital power stations and bridges to deny the US an opportunity to destroy them, proving that the internal Iranian narratives stood firm
Trump approached NATO for help in opening Hormuz, which added to Iran’s narrative of standing firm. The fact that European nations refused permission to the US to utilise their airspace for attacking Iran or even supplying weapons to Israel indicated that US narratives failed even with its close allies. At the same time, Iran’s narratives were considered more acceptable.
Internally, the Iranian leadership had for years been building the belief that the US and Israel were seeking to break the country. There were opposition groups within Iran which spearheaded protests against a collapsing economy and food shortages, but when it came to supporting the US and Israel, they backtracked. The fact that the common Iranian stood unarmed around vital power stations and bridges to deny the US an opportunity to destroy them proved that the internal Iranian narratives stood firm.
In modern warfare, narratives play an equal or possibly greater role in gaining global sympathy and support, especially when determining victory is muddled. The US lost the war to Iran on narratives, and hence, Trump’s claim that the MoU favours the US is not being accepted by anyone, including his own supporters.
The writer is a strategic analyst and a motivator. He can be reached at @kakar_harsha. The views expressed are of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of Raksha Anirveda
