The Minab School: Not Merely a “Mistake,” but the Continuation of a Historical Anti Iranian Project

When Missiles Choose a School Instead of a Military Base

On February 28, 2026 (9 Esfand 1404 in the Iranian calendar), American missiles targeted the Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls’ School in the city of Minab in southern Iran.

In the attack, at least 165 students and teachers were killed and 96 others were injured.

American officials initially denied responsibility. However, Pentagon investigators and an investigative report by The New York Times later confirmed that the missile had indeed been launched by U.S. forces.

Security analysts have emphasized that the strikes were “highly precise and deliberate.” Despite the school clearly displaying the characteristics of a civilian institution including sports fields and recreational spaces the building was severely damaged.

This tragedy occurred at a time when, coinciding with the outbreak of war, Jewish communities in Israel were celebrating the festival of Purim.

Earlier, the U.S. ambassador to Israel had said in a video message:

“We are preparing for Purim. 2,300 years ago, God brought victory through Queen Esther and Mordechai over their enemies in ancient Persia.”

The bombing of a school in Minab during the very days when Jews celebrate the defeat of their enemies in ancient Persia sends a disturbing message to many observers: the project of anti-Iranian hostility may not yet be over.

For some, this was not simply a “miscalculation.” Rather, it appears as a clear signal of the continuation of a historical project that occasionally reappears in new forms while retaining the same underlying essence.

Trump and the “Gut Feeling”: When War Begins With Emotion

In remarks to reporters, Donald Trump stated openly that the reason for initiating the war was “a gut feeling.”

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, confirmed that Trump “had a good feeling that Iran intended to attack,” which led him to order the strike.

This means that a war which has already resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iranian civilians was initiated based on a personal intuition, without expert review, without intelligence analysis, and without a clear strategic roadmap.

This is the same president who previously collapsed negotiations with Iran at their most advanced stage, reportedly due to a similar “gut feeling,” and has now left the world facing the consequences of an escalating conflict.

If we look deeper into political dynamics, some analysts argue that Trump has been influenced by powerful lobbying networks that have long shaped U.S. policy toward Iran.

One of the most influential among them is AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), which for years has used extensive financial resources to influence American policymakers toward a confrontational approach with Iran.

In April 2025, the organization reportedly spent half a million dollars on advertising campaigns pressuring Trump to withdraw from any agreement with Iran resembling the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA).

Another prominent figure behind the scenes is Senator Lindsey Graham, who revealed in a recent interview that he had pressed Trump for months during golf outings and private meetings to authorize military action.

According to Graham, he told the president:

“Mr. President, you must put your fingerprint on this. The world must understand that America fights.”

Interestingly, even Trump’s own political base appears confused by the war.

The newspaper The Hill reported that many prominent figures in the American conservative movement consider the conflict “Israel’s war” and believe it does not serve U.S. national security interests.

Tucker Carlson, who reportedly attempted to dissuade Trump from military action, described the war as “disgusting and evil.”

Megyn Kelly also emphasized that “this is clearly Israel’s war.”

Meanwhile, conservative commentator Matt Walsh described the contradictory messaging from the White House as evidence of “the absence of any coherent objective.”

Similarly, Will Thacker, an analyst at The Federalist, asked bluntly:

“Is this war meant to remove the Iranian regime, or simply to help Israel?”

This confusion suggests that even some of Trump’s strongest supporters recognize that the policy may be influenced by longstanding political pressures pressures that critics believe echo a deeper historical hostility toward Iran.

Iran: Oppressed Yet Strong, Victim Yet Resilient

What has become increasingly clear to the world is the emergence of two contrasting images of Iran.

On one hand, there is the image of a victimized nation, whose girls’ schools are bombed and whose civilians suffer heavy casualties in an unequal war.

UNESCO has described attacks on educational institutions as serious violations of humanitarian law, and UN Secretary-General António Guterres has condemned violence against civilians.

On the other hand, there is the image of a resilient country, which refuses to surrender even under pressure from some of the world’s most powerful military forces.

Iran’s representative at the United Nations has stated that thousands of civilians have been killed in attacks, including more than 180 children.

Yet Iran, according to its officials, continues to maintain the initiative and will determine the ultimate course of the conflict.

This combination of victimhood and strength has presented the world with a stark reality: Iran cannot easily be defeated.

From Esther to Trump: A Historical Narrative That Is Not New

However, this narrative may have deeper historical roots than today’s war.

To understand the broader perspective, some commentators argue that one must return to the story of Esther, a narrative found in Jewish scripture.

According to this view, the historical events may differ significantly from the way they are commonly portrayed.

Esther: A Story That Some Say Was Reversed

The story of Esther is often cited as an example of historical interpretation shaped by political narratives.

In the traditional account, Haman, a minister under King Xerxes, plots the destruction of the Jewish people.

However, Esther and Mordechai, through their influence on the king, expose the plot and save the Jewish population.

In the end, Jews are granted permission to defend themselves against their enemies. Yet some historians present a different perspective.

1. Persians Were Not Known for Ethnic Extermination

The Achaemenid civilization was built on principles of religious tolerance and ethnic coexistence.

After conquering Babylon, Cyrus the Great allowed many exiled peoples to return to their homelands.

Xerxes, according to historical interpretations, continued similar traditions.

Historical records do not indicate that Achaemenid kings issued orders for the extermination of Jewish communities.

2. The Story of Esther as a Historical Legend

According to references such as the Cambridge History of Judaism and Encyclopaedia Britannica, the historical accuracy of the Book of Esther has often been questioned.

The text is sometimes considered more a literary account of court intrigue and dramatic deliverance than a verified historical narrative.

Furthermore, among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contain some of the earliest known biblical manuscripts, no copy of the Book of Esther has been found.

This absence has led some scholars to suggest that the story may have been written later, possibly during the Hellenistic period, when Greek cultural influence was widespread.

Some researchers believe the narrative may reflect Greek interpretations or political perspectives about the Persian Empire.

3. Historical Inconsistencies

Historians have pointed to several inconsistencies:

• According to Herodotus, the wife of Xerxes was Amestris, daughter of Otanes. There is no

mention of Vashti or Esther in his accounts.

• Xerxes was known as a devoted follower of Zoroastrian beliefs, frequently invoking Ahura

Mazda in his inscriptions for protection against false gods.

• Some scholars argue that, under such circumstances, marrying a non-Zoroastrian woman

and elevating her to queen would have been unlikely.

• Based on the Esther narrative, Mordechai’s age would have exceeded 100 years, given that

he is described as having been exiled during the Babylonian deportations long before

Xerxes’ reign.

4. Who Carried Out the Violence?

According to the Book of Esther itself, Jewish communities were permitted to defend themselves and defeat their enemies.

The text states that on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month:

“The Jews struck all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroying them.” (Esther 9:5)

Turn a Page of History

Below this paragraph, you will find a link to a research report examining the earliest signals of antiIranian hostility from certain historical groups.

This study suggests that antagonism toward Iran has deep historical roots and has reappeared throughout history in different forms.

From Esther to Contemporary Narratives

Iranians: Not Partners in Violence, but Victims of Historical Hostility

Throughout history, Iran has faced numerous external invasions.

However, many historians argue that internal divisions and betrayal have often played a role in such defeats.

For example, Alexander of Macedon did not conquer Persia entirely alone. Some local satraps and political rivals supported his campaign for their own interests.

Yet the broader pattern of Iranian civilization emphasizes cooperation, collective strength, and mutual protection.

As seen in Achaemenid inscriptions, Persian kings frequently described themselves as protectors of all peoples, not rulers of a single ethnic group.

Mission of the Global Iranians Platform

At the Global Iranians Platform, we believe it is important to present historical narratives with transparency and documentation.

Our research team has already begun working in this area, and our mini-platforms “Iranian News” and “Iranian Biographies” are publishing specialized content on related topics.

Our goal is to present documented perspectives and clarify historical narratives surrounding Iran from ancient times to the present.

Some analysts argue that military operations targeting nearby facilities may sometimes risk unintended civilian damage. Others insist that stronger safeguards are necessary to prevent schools and hospitals from becoming part of modern battlefields.

FAQ

What happened in the Minab school bombing?

The Minab school bombing refers to a reported missile strike that hit a girls’ school in southern Iran, resulting in significant civilian casualties.

Where is Minab located?

Minab is a city in Hormozgan Province in southern Iran near the Persian Gulf.

Why has the incident sparked international debate?

The attack raised concerns about civilian casualties, geopolitical tensions, and the broader narratives shaping conflicts involving Iran.