I received this last weekend. This is the first chance I've had to blog about it.
On March 12, 2026, I pondered this:
Maybe we can get a comment out of our pair of Pennsylvania Senate
bipartisans on how, during Donald Trump's war on Iran, a school filled
with school children was demolished by a US Tomahawk missile.
Well exactly one month later (see above, this was last week), I received exactly one response from one of our Pennsylvania Senators. Sen. Fetterman, where are you on this?
This is how Sen McCormick responded:
On February 28, 2026, U.S. and Israeli forces commenced military
operations against Iran during which a strike occurred at or near the
Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab. The school is
located adjacent to the Sayyid al-Shuhada military complex, which serves
as the headquarters of the IRGC Navy’s Asif Brigade and is a key
operational site near the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian state media has
reported approximately 165 fatalities, most of them girls between the
ages of seven and twelve, along with their teachers. U.S. Central
Command has acknowledged reports of civilian casualties and has
announced an investigation.
I am deeply proud of America’s military men and women and how they
conduct themselves with honor every day. The loss of innocent life,
especially that of children, is a tragedy. As a former servicemember, I
take reports of civilian harm very seriously. At this stage, it is
important to allow the military’s investigative process to proceed
before drawing final conclusions. The U.S. Armed Forces have maintained
established legal and operational procedures for assessing incidents of
this nature, and it would be premature to render judgment before those
processes are complete. I expect the Administration to be fully
transparent with Congress and the American people once the investigation
concludes.
So he acknowledges the event (and states that it's a tragedy) but holds off going any further, stating that reaching any "final conclusions" until the military has completed its investigation would be premature.
That's a disappointment, what is he expecting the military investigation to find? The school wasn't destroyed? It wasn't a US Tomahawk missile?
Let's move on to see what else Sen McCormick could have said (but chose not to):
Reuters:
U.S. military investigators believe it is likely that U.S. forces were
responsible for an apparent strike on an Iranian girls' school that
killed scores of children on Saturday but have not yet reached a final
conclusion or completed their investigation, two U.S. officials told
Reuters.
Sen McCormick does say that he "expects" the Trump administration to be "fully transparent" about this investigation.
Does Sen McCormick even understand what the phrase "Trump administration" means? How many Inspectors General did he fire in the first week of this administration? What does the term "transparency" mean to an administration that's playing fast and lose with the Epstein files?
But I digress. Perhaps I am being paranoid (Paranoia, that kinky destroyer.), perhaps not.
Let's take a larger look at the framework around that investigation.
The Reiss Center on Law and Security, at NYU Law school, hosts Just Security, an "editorially independent, non-partisan, daily digital law and policy journal" wrote:
In our research, we found that the prevailing command environment can
significantly shape both the scope and outcome of an investigation.
This environment is expressed through formal and informal signals of a
commander’s intent. One retired military member interviewed reflected
that, “the command environment is going to shape what the commander
deems worthy of inquiry.”
In the case of the Minab school strike, it is appropriate and
expected that the Pentagon has announced a formal investigation.
However, it is also important to consider the command environment
created by senior military leaders. Secretary of Defense Hegseth has
famously denounced “stupid rules of engagement.” He has spoken of giving “no quarter” in Iran, an approach that is specifically prohibited
under international humanitarian law. In the context of the Minab
strike, he has repeatedly made comments stressing that the United States
does not target civilians. However, deliberately targeting civilians
should not be the threshold for serious concern and inquiry into
civilian harm events, nor is it required for an incident to constitute a
violation of IHL or war crime. Recklessly doing so, or killing
civilians through gross negligence, could also rise to that level.
So there's that.
In any event, Sen McCormick pivots to the real villains here:
The Department of Defense’s process for investigating reports of
civilian casualties stands in sharp contrast to the regime in Tehran,
which has a record of targeting civilian infrastructure and population
centers across the region. Iran has also consistently placed military
assets, such as missile launchers, drone systems, and command
facilities, within densely populated areas, including neighborhoods,
schools, and hospitals. The IRGC’s use of civilian areas for military
purposes appears intended to complicate lawful military operations and
to exploit resulting casualties for propaganda. I unequivocally condemn
the use of civilian sites to shield military activity, as well as any
attacks that deliberately target civilians across the Middle East.
Let's assume that everything Dave wrote above is true (and let's face it, this is Iran we're talking about - that's not a big assumption) and that Iran is guilty of setting the IRGC buildings and the school so close together that the latter is, in fact, a "shield" for the former.
Doesn't change things much.
This is from Article 57 of the Geneva Conventions:
1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken
to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.
2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
(a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:
(i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be
attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject
to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of
paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;
(ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods
of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing,
incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to
civilian objects;
(iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected
to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage
to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive
in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
But yea, let's avoid saying anything until the investigation from the department headed by Sec Hegseth releases its final report, avoiding saying anything about what Hegseth has said about these rules of engagement:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has made
contempt for what he calls “stupid rules of engagement” — limits meant
to reduce risks to civilians — central to his political identity, and
has boasted that he unleashed the military to use “maximum authorities on the battlefield” in the Iran war.
“Our warfighters have maximum authorities granted personally by the president and yours truly,” Mr. Hegseth said at a briefing four days after the war started. “Our rules of engagement are bold, precise and designed to unleash American power, not shackle it.”
This and similar statements are now the backdrop to a body of evidence
that the destruction of an Iranian elementary school during the opening
hours of the war was likely caused by an American missile strike. The
preliminary finding of an ongoing military investigation has determined
that the United States was responsible, The New York Times has reported.
Senator, you can do better than this. At least you should.
The letter:
