This claim contains multiple compounding falsehoods that together constitute a piece of war propaganda rather than factual reporting. The strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh school in Minab on February 28, 2026 occurred on the opening day of Operation Epic Fury, the joint U.S.-Israel military campaign against Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile infrastructure. Attributing the strike solely and deliberately to Israel misrepresents the operational command structure, the investigating authority, and the entire evidentiary record surrounding the incident. The assertion that it reflects a "calculated IDF policy of targeting civilian educational institutions" is an invention with no basis in military doctrine, international law, or established fact.

The Facts About the Minab Strike

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) — not the IDF — was identified as the investigating authority for the Minab school strike. The New York Times reported that CENTCOM appointed an officer from outside its ranks to conduct a formal investigation into the strike, a step consistent with an unintended targeting incident, not a deliberate massacre. The U.S. military's own preliminary review, per reporting at the time, was examining whether the strike resulted from a targeting error — a conclusion that directly contradicts the myth's claim of premeditated killing.

The Guardian published an investigative piece under the headline "AI got the blame for the Iran school bombing," pointing to automated targeting systems as a potential cause of the strike — again, entirely inconsistent with the narrative of deliberate, policy-driven slaughter of children. Even outlets uniformly hostile to both the United States and Israel, including Middle East Eye, described the Minab incident as "a U.S. strike" — not an Israeli one. The myth's insistence on attributing sole, deliberate Israeli agency contradicts even the most adversarial coverage of the event.

• Command authority: Operation Epic Fury was a joint U.S.-Israel operation with CENTCOM holding overall operational command; the school strike investigation was conducted by CENTCOM, not the IDF.
• Investigative response: CENTCOM opened a formal independent investigation — standard procedure for a suspected targeting error, not a deliberate kill order.
• Attributed cause: Multiple investigative reports pointed to AI-assisted targeting system failure, not willful intent.
• No IDF policy document, order, or command directive authorizing the targeting of schools exists — because no such policy exists in IDF doctrine or Israeli law.
• Casualty figures conflict across sources, with figures ranging from 165 to 170, suggesting reliance on unverified Iranian state-provided data rather than independent verification.

IDF Doctrine and International Law Directly Contradict the "Policy" Claim

The IDF operates under a legally binding targeting framework that is among the most rigorously documented in the world. The IDF's International Law Department directly supervises all aerial attacks — from target selection through strike execution — and all targets must receive advance legal authorization. IDF directives explicitly require military commanders to select the means of warfare that are expected to cause the least incidental damage, and to cancel or suspend strikes if expected civilian harm becomes disproportionate to military advantage. This framework is not a public relations claim; it is codified in IDF operational orders and has been formally documented in Israel's submissions to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Under customary international humanitarian law, as codified in Articles 51, 52, and 57 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, parties to an armed conflict are prohibited from directing attacks against civilian objects and obligated to take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm. Israel is bound by and publicly committed to these obligations. The claim of a "calculated policy" targeting schoolchildren inverts the documented legal reality: it is Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) that has a documented record of embedding military assets within civilian infrastructure, including — as reported by the BBC in March 2026 — deploying children in security and patrol roles under the "Homeland Defender Fighters for Iran" program, deliberately blurring civilian-combatant lines.

The Anatomy of Anti-Israel War Propaganda

This myth follows a recognizable template deployed repeatedly against Israel and, in this case, extended to the U.S.-Israel alliance: take a tragic civilian casualty event, strip it of operational context, reassign blame exclusively to Israel, invent a policy framework to transform an incident into a systemic crime, and circulate the package through platforms and outlets structurally aligned with Iran, Qatar, and the broader Islamist information network. The February 28 strikes on Iran occurred on the same day that U.S. and Israeli forces eliminated Supreme Leader Khamenei — an enormous strategic event that generated an immediate global disinformation response from regime-aligned media ecosystems.

The specific embellishments in this myth — "deliberately," "massacring," "calculated IDF policy," the precise age range of "7–12" — are rhetorical escalations designed to preclude rational analysis and provoke immediate moral condemnation. None of these characterizations are supported by neutral investigative sources. Propagating them without scrutiny does not constitute journalism or informed opinion; it constitutes the laundering of Iranian state-interest narratives into Western public discourse.

Conclusion: A Fabricated Atrocity Narrative

The Minab school strike was a tragic event in the context of a major military conflict. What it was not is evidence of deliberate Israeli policy to murder children. CENTCOM — the U.S. military authority — took responsibility for investigating the strike as a potential error. The IDF's documented targeting doctrine, its legal obligations under international humanitarian law, and the consistent operational record of the joint U.S.-Israel campaign all contradict the myth's central claims. Accepting and repeating this narrative without challenge serves the information warfare objectives of the Iranian regime and its allied propaganda infrastructure — and dishonors honest inquiry into what actually occurred.