A Reckoning for Hegseth: Will a Tragedy in Iran Change Course?

The recent US air strike on a school in Minab, southern Iran, has sparked outrage and calls for accountability from around the world. The attack killed nearly 170 people, most of them children, and has become a defining symbol of US aggression in the region.

As the Pentagon grapples with the human impact of its five-month war with Iran, it’s clear that this tragedy may be a turning point in the career of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. His tenure at the Pentagon has been marked by a relentless focus on military lethality and battlefield swagger. One of his earliest moves was to purge staff dedicated to avoiding civilian casualties in war, sending a clear message: under Hegseth, the military would prioritize winning above all else, even if it means sacrificing innocent lives.

The Minab strike has exposed the dark consequences of this approach. An investigation by the Pentagon found that the attack may have been based on outdated or faulty intelligence, and that the US military had possessed information about the site’s conversion into a school – but failed to share it with planners. This is not just a failure of intelligence; it’s a failure of leadership.

The tragedy in Minab has also highlighted the Pentagon’s broader approach to civilian casualties. As Geoffrey Corn, director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University, points out, military operations are now judged instantaneously by audiences around the world – making public perception an essential strategic consideration. Yet under Hegseth, the Pentagon has seemed more concerned with dodging criticism than with genuinely addressing the problem.

The need to improve protections for civilians is not a new lesson; it’s one that was learned at great cost in Iraq and Afghanistan over two decades of counterinsurgent wars. The Pentagon formally added “legitimacy,” “restraint,” and “perseverance” to its Principles of Joint Operations in 2006, recognizing that battlefield success alone is insufficient – that the military must also prioritize the law, morality, and rightness of its actions.

The US military’s treatment of civilian casualties in war is not a new issue. It’s a pattern that stretches back decades, to the counterinsurgent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it’s one that has been exacerbated by policies like Hegseth’s, which prioritize winning above all else – even if it means sacrificing innocent lives.

In 2006, the Pentagon formally added “legitimacy,” “restraint,” and “perseverance” to its Principles of Joint Operations. These principles are meant to guide military decision-making, but they’ve been consistently disregarded by Hegseth and his team. The result has been a series of tragic incidents, from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal to the killing of civilians in Afghanistan’s Kunduz province.

Hegseth’s focus on “lethality” has been touted as a key part of his approach to war. But what does this really mean? In practice, it means prioritizing “kinetic” operations – large-scale attacks on enemy positions – without regard for civilian casualties. This approach has failed time and again, from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The tragedy in Minab is not just a tragedy; it’s also an opportunity for reckoning. It’s time for the US military to confront its own mistakes, and to ask itself whether it truly values the lives of civilians in war. This will require more than just words – it will require action. The Pentagon must take concrete steps to improve protections for civilians in war, including embedding experts on avoiding civilian casualties in military targeting teams.

It’s also time for Congress to hold Hegseth and his team accountable for their policies. They must demand answers about the Minab strike, and they must push for real change at the Pentagon – not just more of the same rhetoric and empty promises.

The world is watching, and the stakes are high. Will the US military finally learn from its mistakes, or will it continue down a path that prioritizes winning above all else? Only time will tell, but one thing is certain: this tragedy has changed the game – and Hegseth’s future at the Pentagon hangs precariously in the balance.

As the dust settles on the Minab strike, one thing is clear: the US military must change its approach to war. It must prioritize protecting civilians above all else, and it must take concrete steps to address the pattern of disregard for civilian lives that has characterized its operations for decades. The world will be watching, and the stakes are high. Will Hegseth finally be forced to confront his policies, or will he continue down a path that prioritizes winning above all else? Only time will tell, but one thing is certain: this tragedy cannot be swept under the rug – it’s a reckoning that has begun, and one that will have far-reaching consequences for the US military and its relationship with the world.