U.S. Military Bombs Iranian School After Its Preliminary Investigation Cites AI Targeting Error

On 28 February U.S. forces struck the Shajarah Tayyebeh elementary school in Minab, southern Iran, in an attack that preliminary reporting and investigations attribute to a targeting error and the use of advanced targeting systems.

The Chosun Daily reported that “A preliminary U.S. military investigation has suggested that the bombing of an Iranian girls’ elementary school on the 28th of last month was caused by a targeting error. At least 170 people, mostly children, were killed.”

The Chosun Daily

TRT World described the incident as part of a “Minab Targeting Fiasco” and said “The Tomahawk missile strike killed 175 people, including 150 schoolgirls and staff.”

조선일보 framed the coverage under the headline “U.S. Military Bombing of Iranian School Linked to AI Targeting Error.”

Preliminary probes cited outdated intelligence and coordinate errors in the chain that produced the strike coordinates, with multiple outlets saying CENTCOM relied on older data from intelligence agencies.

The Chosun Daily reported that “The New York Times (NYT), citing U.S. officials, reported on the 11th that the misidentification occurred because Central Command (CENTCOM) used outdated data provided by intelligence agencies to set coordinates.”

TRT World

TRT World similarly wrote that “Investigators believe that officers at CENTCOM generated the strike coordinates using outdated intelligence provided by the Defence Intelligence Agency.”

조선일보’s coverage highlighted that the investigation “cites outdated coordinates and AI's role in misidentifying school near IRGC base as military target.”

Officials and critics differ on the role of artificial intelligence versus human decision-making in the error.

CENTCOM head Admiral Brad Cooper acknowledged deployment of advanced AI tools and defended their use, saying “Our warfighters are leveraging a variety of advanced AI tools. These systems help us sift through vast amounts of data in seconds so our leaders can cut through the noise and make smarter decisions faster than the enemy can react,” and stressed that “Humans will always make final decisions on what to shoot and what not to shoot,” according to TRT World.

By contrast, The Chosun Daily noted that “some critics argue that the mistake may stem from artificial intelligence (AI) systems operating beyond human control,” and 조선일보’s framing pointed to “AI's role in misidentifying” the target.

Reporting also describes how the intended military objective was mischaracterised: the purported IRGC naval base targeted in the operation had been converted into a girls’ school years earlier and lay very close to the struck school.

The Chosun Daily said the IRGC base “had been converted into a girls' school between 2013 and 2016, a change not reflected in the data,” and added that the base “was located approximately 600 meters from the bombed school.”

The Chosun Daily

조선일보’s headline and summary likewise emphasise the misidentification of the school near an IRGC base, and TRT World framed the episode as a Minab “targeting fiasco” tied to those mistaken target designations.

Taken together the articles present a preliminary, contested picture: U.S. command acknowledges expanded AI use and defends human oversight while multiple reports and critics point to outdated intelligence and possible automation-related failures, and casualty counts differ between outlets.

“The United States military has confirmed for the first time that it is deploying a 'variety' of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) tools in its war against Iran”

TRT World

The Chosun Daily noted that “CENTCOM oversaw the entire operation in Iran,”

TRT World

TRT World recorded Cooper’s admission that “The United States military has confirmed for the first time that it is deploying a 'variety' of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) tools in its war against Iran,”

Both Chosun and TRT used language—“targeting error” and “targeting fiasco”—that underscores the gravity and the provisional nature of the findings.