The United States forcefully rejected a United Nations report alleging war crimes during military operations in Iran, with the State Department dismissing the findings as part of the UN Human Rights Council's pattern of anti-American bias and appeasement of authoritarian regimes.
The UN's Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran released its report Thursday, claiming "reasonable grounds" exist to believe Washington's forces "committed the war crime of launching indiscriminate attacks resulting in the loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects." The mission specifically cited a Tomahawk missile strike on a primary school in Minab that killed more than 150 people and another airstrike on what it described as a "clearly identifiable sports complex and residential area" that killed 22 civilians.
State Department Pushes Back
A State Department official didn't mince words in responding to the report. The U.S. doesn't give credibility to the findings, the official said, adding that the UN council "pushes anti-American rhetoric and antisemitism" and "appeases repressive regimes." White House spokesperson Anna Kelly went further, stating: "The only party in this conflict that has committed war crimes is the Iranian regime."
The Pentagon had not commented by the time CNBC reached out for a response.
Details of the Allegations
The UN report claimed the Minab school was the intended target and that resulting damage wasn't from an errant strike or collateral damage from an attack on a nearby Revolutionary Guard compound. The experts said they found no information indicating the school was used for military purposes at the time. The mission also pointed to missiles used against the sports complex and residential area as evidence of indiscriminate attacks.
It's worth noting the fact-finding mission also charged Iran with human rights violations and "crimes against humanity committed," though these findings received less attention in the report's coverage.
U.S. Withdrawal from Human Rights Council
Washington withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council in February 2025 via executive order from President Donald Trump. The administration said some UN agencies and bodies, including the council, were acting contrary to U.S. interests. That decision came more than a year before this latest report, underscoring long-standing tensions between Washington and the Geneva-based body.
Diplomatic Opening Emerges
Despite the acrimony over the UN report, hopes are rising that negotiations around the Middle East conflict could restart. Government officials told MS NOW that a meeting between Gulf Arab nations, the U.S., and Iran could take place around the time of the United Nations General Assembly next week.
The State Department approved the Iranian delegation's travel to attend the General Assembly, though under strict conditions. A State Department spokesperson said the delegation will be under travel restrictions and will be prohibited from purchasing luxury or other goods. Tehran's delegation is expected to include President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, according to the Associated Press.
Why This Matters:
The UN report represents another front in the institutional battle between Washington and international bodies that the Trump administration views as hostile to American interests. The State Department's rejection isn't just about this specific report—it reflects a broader skepticism about multilateral organizations that claim authority to judge U.S. military operations without accountability to American voters or understanding of operational realities. The timing matters too. With potential negotiations on the horizon and Iran's leadership coming to New York, the report could complicate diplomatic efforts or serve as leverage for Tehran. Yet the administration's willingness to approve Iranian travel suggests it won't let UN accusations derail potential talks. The fundamental question remains whether international bodies can credibly assess military operations when they've already lost the confidence of major powers through perceived bias.