Vice President JD Vance recently asserted that American military forces do not target civilians during their operations. However, data from the first 40 days of the conflict with Iran indicates that over 1,700 civilians died, contradicting these claims.
The 77 percent civilian harm rate in early Iran operations
Independent monitoring by the organization HRANA has revealed a stark disconnect between official White House rhetoric and the reality on the ground. According to the report, HRANA documented 6,324 verified incidents during the initial 40 days of the war with Iran. A staggering 77 percent of these verified events resulted in either direct civilian casualties or the destruction of civilian infrastructure.
This high percentage suggests that civilian harm is not a peripheral byproduct of the conflict but a central feature of the current military phase.. While Vice President JD Vance has expressed complete confidence that the US military avoids targeting non-combatants,the sheer volume of incidents documented by HRANA makes the "isolated error" argument difficult to sustain.
From Minab's elementary school to Lamerd's sports hall
The human cost of these operations is highlighted by specific, high-casualty events in Iranian cities. On the first day of the war, a bombing of an elementary school in Minab killed at least 150 children and teachers, as reported in the source material. This event set a grim precedent for the first phase of the conflict.
Further devastation occurred in Lamerd, where precision missile strikes hit a sports hall and nearby residential areas, killing at least 21 civilians, including seven children. More recently, a strike on a wedding party killed at least five people, including two children. These specific instances of carnage in Minab and Lamerd challenge the narrative that US forces are operating with surgical precision that spares the innocent.
Autonomous weapons and double-tap strikes in populated zones
The patterns of atttack identified by HRANA suggest a systemic failure in the application of international humanitarian law. The report flags the deployment of autonomous weapons systems that operate with minimal human oversight, as well as the use of large explosive weapons within densely populated urban zones. These tactics significantly increase the risk of collateral damage.
Even more concerning are the reports of "double-tap" strikes, where the same location is hit multiple times in quick succession. This tactic often kills first responders and civilians attempting to rescue survivors. HRANA also noted a recurring failure in target verification and a lack of adequate advance warnings provided to civilians in targeted areas.
A pattern of wedding bombings since 2001 in Iraq and Afghanistan
The current tragedy in Iran does not exist in a vacuum but echoes a long-standing history of US military conduct. Critics argue that the recent strike on a wedding party is part of a broader trend seen in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, where celebrations were repeatedly mistaken for or targeted as insurgent gatherings.
By framing these events as a continuation of a two-decade pattern, humanitarian observers suggest that the current casualties in Iran are not "regrettable mistakes" but the result of a persistent military culture that deprioritizes civilian life in conflict zones. This historical context transforms the current data from a series of anomalies into a systemic critique of US rules of engagement.
The investigation into "regrettable mistakes" and target selection
Despite the evidence provided by HRANA, Vice President JD Vance continues to maintain that any loss of life resulted from mistakes that are being thoroughly investigated. However, the report highlights a critical lack of transparency regarding how these targets are selected and who is held accountable when a school or a wedding party is hit.
It remains unclear what specific criteria the US military is using to verify targets in Iran, and the source notes that the official narrative relies entirely on internal investigations. Without independent oversight or a public accounting of the rules of engagement, the claim that the US "never targets civilians" remains an unverified political assertion rather than a documented fact.
Comments 0