US recklessness in Minab proves Trump administration's failure
By Bram de Vries · Reporting from Amsterdam ·
In the shipping lanes of Rotterdam, we have a saying: a captain who ignores the charts to save an hour usually ends up spending a month in dry dock.
The High Price of Amateur Lethality
In the shipping lanes of Rotterdam, we have a saying: a captain who ignores the charts to save an hour usually ends up spending a month in dry dock. The current American approach to Iran is exactly that—a reckless shortcut masquerading as strength. The latest report from the UN’s Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran confirms what any sober observer of logistics and risk already knew: the United States has traded strategic precision for a blunt instrument, and the bill has come due in the form of dead children.
As reported by Al Jazeera and the Daily Maverick, the UN has found reasonable grounds to believe the United States committed war crimes during February’s strikes. We are talking about a Tomahawk missile hitting the Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab, killing over 150 people, including 120 children. Then there is the Lamerd sports center, where a Precision Strike Missile killed 22 civilians. The UN concludes these were indiscriminate attacks. While the Pentagon hides behind "ongoing investigations," Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has already told us the philosophy driving this: "maximum lethality, not tepid legality over stupid rules of engagement."
To a businessman, "maximum lethality" without "legality" is simply a fancy term for a lack of quality control. When you ignore the rules of engagement, you aren't being "courageous"; you are being sloppy.
The Blueprint of High-Altitude Hubris
The American administration, via spokeswoman Anna Kelly, dismisses the UN Human Rights Council as "spouting unserious nonsense." This is the standard script of the superpower that believes it is the only entity allowed to hold the pen when history is written. But the record shows this isn't a new habit; it is a pattern of high-altitude hubris.
We saw this exact mechanism during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. The pattern is identical: a Western-led aerial campaign against a sovereign state, the inevitable "collateral damage" of civilian infrastructure, and a subsequent UN investigation that the architects of the bombing treat as a nuisance. The shared mechanism here is the belief that distance—bombing from 30,000 feet—absolves the operator of the responsibility for what happens on the ground. Just as the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia attempted to reshape a region through the air, the current "Operation Epic Fury" treats the Iranian landscape as a map of targets rather than a place where people live.
This is the same arrogance that fueled the Libyan Civil War, where NATO-led strikes on infrastructure left a vacuum of instability that persists today. The US thinks it is removing a threat; in reality, it is just diversifying the chaos.
Trading Stability for a Slogan
Let us put the opposing case at its strongest: the Iranian regime is a murderous entity. UN News confirms this, detailing "crimes against humanity" including the torture and killing of thousands of its own citizens in a violent crackdown. Anna Kelly is correct that the regime is evil. The argument is that to prevent a nuclear-armed Tehran, the US must act with overwhelming force, regardless of the "tepid" legalities.
But this is a false trade. In the mercantile world, you do not secure a market by burning down the warehouse. By acting "recklessly"—the UN’s specific word—the US provides the Iranian regime with the ultimate propaganda gift. Every dead child in Minab is a recruitment poster for the IRGC. The US is not making the world "safer and more stable"; it is eroding the very international norms that prevent the world from sliding into a permanent state of warlordism.
We have seen this dynamic before, from the failures of the Rwandan genocide to the geopolitical tremors of the Suez Crisis. When the superpower decides that the rules are "stupid," the result is never a quicker victory; it is a longer, more expensive conflict.
The Hook and the Hard Landing
The International Criminal Court now has what lawyer Reed Brody calls a "hook." The UN’s findings provide the evidentiary foundation for a formal criminal investigation into US military leadership. Washington may withdraw from the ICJ or ignore the UNHRC, but you cannot withdraw from the reality of global isolation.
The trajectory is clear: the US will double down on "maximum lethality," further isolating itself from the legal frameworks that govern civilized trade and diplomacy. Iran will use the school in Minab to deflect from the thousands it has murdered at home. Meanwhile, the stability of the Persian Gulf—the artery of global energy—is being gambled away by men who think "rules of engagement" are for the weak.
The United States has mistaken recklessness for resolve. By treating international law as a bureaucratic hurdle rather than a guardrail, the Trump administration has not strengthened the West; it has merely proven that the most powerful military in history is currently being run by people who cannot tell the difference between a naval complex and a primary school. This is not leadership; it is a catastrophic failure of management.