TEHRAN – Throughout its turbulent history, Iran has faced repeated destruction of its cultural heritage during invasions and upheavals. From the campaigns of Alexander the Great to the Arab invasion and Mongol conquests, the country has survived countless assaults, yet the core of Persian culture and its deeply rooted traditions has remained resilient.

In the current conflict, however, a new and bizarre pattern has emerged: the same actors claiming to “stand with the Iranian people” have carried out attacks that killed hundreds of innocent civilians and damaged schools, hospitals, and cultural heritage sites, to name a few. 

Since the outbreak of war on Feb. 28, repeated declarations by U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that strikes would target only state and military infrastructure have increasingly been contradicted by events on the ground. Reports of widespread damage to civilian areas, including some of Iran’s most treasured historical and cultural sites, have drawn growing scrutiny, politically, legally, and ethically.

So far, Iranian officials report that at least 114 museums, historic buildings, and cultural sites have sustained damage. In many documented cases, the destruction is severe, with some losses potentially irreversible.

Taken together, these incidents suggest more than accidental or isolated harm. Rather, they point to a recurring pattern in which cultural sites, though not explicitly designated as targets, are repeatedly exposed to the destructive consequences of nearby airstrikes. 

Among the most prominent cases is the Golestan Palace, a UNESCO World Heritage site in Tehran. Damage caused by nearby airstrikes that shattered windows and affected the palace’s intricate decoration, a hallmark of Persian artistic heritage.

In Isfahan, long regarded as a centerpiece of Iranian civilization, the Chehel Sotoun pavilion and the historic complex of Naqsh-e Jahan Square also sustained internal damage due to powerful shockwaves generated by nearby strikes. These sites are not only architectural landmarks but also central to the historical identity of the Safavid era.

Further west, in Khorramabad, missile impacts in surrounding areas damaged the Falak-ol-Aflak Fortress, a historic citadel that houses museums and cultural collections. Reports indicate injuries among personnel and structural damage to the complex.

None of these sites were identified as military objectives.

In most instances, the destruction was not the result of direct strikes but of secondary effects; blast waves, vibrations, and pressure changes. Yet experts emphasize that such effects are inherent to modern warfare and, crucially, foreseeable.

Beyond physical destruction

Cultural heritage sites are not merely buildings; they are repositories of collective memory, identity, and historical continuity. Their destruction, whether partial or complete, extends far beyond physical damage.

In cities like Isfahan, where historic monuments are embedded in everyday urban life, the impact reverberates across social, cultural, and economic spheres. Tourism declines, local economies suffer, and communities experience a rupture in their connection to the past.

This broader dimension has been emphasized by the minister of cultural heritage and tourism, Seyyed Reza Salehi-Amiri, who describes the attacks as part of a deeper phenomenon. According to him, such actions amount to a “civilizational war”, one that targets not only infrastructure but also the “memory,” “identity,” and “continuity” of a nation. “What we are witnessing,” he said, “is an assault on the cultural memory of this land.”

From this perspective, the damage is not incidental but carries symbolic weight, affecting both national identity and what is widely regarded as part of humanity’s shared cultural heritage.

 Legal and moral accountability

Under the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its related protocols, parties to a conflict are obligated to protect cultural property and avoid damage except in cases of imperative military necessity.

Legal experts stress that this obligation extends beyond direct targeting. It includes the foreseeable consequences of military operations. If an attack is likely to cause damage to protected cultural sites, even indirectly, those conducting it are required to take all feasible precautions to prevent or minimize such harm.

This principle of foreseeability is central to assessing the current situation in Iran. The repeated exposure of heritage sites to shockwaves from nearby strikes raises questions about whether sufficient precautions were taken and whether the principles of proportionality and precaution were adequately respected.

Many analysts argue that when foreseeable harm to protected sites occurs repeatedly, it may cross the threshold from incidental damage into potential violations of international law. In such cases, the destruction of cultural heritage can be interpreted not merely as collateral damage but as part of conduct that may amount to war crimes.

Rewrite this text in a way to condemn U.S.- Israeli’s damage to Iran’s heritage sites and prove that they are sworn enemies of Iranian nation and their cultural heritage despite their sweet words:

Rhetoric vs. reality

Despite mounting evidence of damage to cultural heritage sites, the United States and Israel continue to describe their operations as precise and aimed at minimizing civilian harm. Yet the repeated and foreseeable impact on protected sites raises serious questions about the credibility of those claims.

Even when strikes are directed at military or administrative targets, the consequences have extended to landmarks that embody Iran’s historical identity. This pattern challenges the notion that such operations can be both precise and insulated from broader cultural harm.

For observers assessing the situation on the basis of documented evidence, the gap between stated intentions and visible outcomes is increasingly difficult to ignore. Assertions of solidarity with the Iranian people sit uneasily alongside the damage inflicted on the very symbols of their cultural heritage, underscoring a growing disconnect between rhetoric and reality.

AM