Wednesday, March 04, 2026

Only one of the four Daim children being sought in Ops Godfather probe has come forward, MACC says





Only one of the four Daim children being sought in Ops Godfather probe has come forward, MACC says



Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki said the whereabouts of three of Tun Daim Zainuddin's children were currently unknown. — Picture by Firdaus Latif

Wednesday, 04 Mar 2026 1:41 PM MYT


PUTRAJAYA, March 4 — Only one of the four children of the late former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin who are being sought to assist in an ongoing investigation has responded so far, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) said today.

MACC Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki said the whereabouts of three other children were currently unknown.


“We have urged their lawyers to get in touch with their clients to attend an interview at our headquarters as soon as possible,” he told a press conference at MACC’s headquarters here.

The MACC announced on February 26 that it was seeking the four children to assist in investigations under Section 36(1)(b) of the MACC Act 2009.


The commission identified them as Asnida Abdul Daim, Md Wira Dani Abdul Daim, Muhammed Amir Zainuddin and Muhammed Amin Zainuddin, providing their last known addresses.


Immigration Director-General Datuk Zakaria Shaaban previously confirmed that three of the named individuals were detected leaving Malaysia in late January and early this month.

The investigation stems from disclosures in the Pandora Papers in 2021, which revealed offshore companies and assets allegedly linked to Daim, his family members and business associates.


Subsequent further information received from foreign enforcement agencies in late 2025 prompted new investigations involving several family members and associates.

On this matter, Azam said MACC has identified several assets overseas belonging to the family worth billions of ringgit and is collaborating with local authorities per the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) process.


Samsuri’s appointment as Perikatan chairman does not automatically make him PM candidate, says Muhyiddin





Samsuri’s appointment as Perikatan chairman does not automatically make him PM candidate, says Muhyiddin



Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said Perikatan Nasional has not yet discussed who it would nominate as prime minister if the coalition wins the next general election. — Picture by Firdaus Latif

Wednesday, 04 Mar 2026 12:45 PM MYT


KUALA LUMPUR, March 4 — Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has said the appointment of PAS vice-president Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Samsuri Mokhtar as Perikatan Nasional (PN) chairman does not mean the Terengganu Menteri Besar will automatically be the coalition’s prime ministerial candidate.

According to Berita Harian, the Bersatu president said the question of who PN would nominate as prime minister if it wins the 16th General Election (GE16) is a separate matter and has not yet been discussed with PAS.


“That has not been discussed yet… when the matter arose previously and I was nominated (as prime minister), PAS leaders said no, they did not want to discuss it further… so I think that position still stands,” he was quoted as saying at the Bersatu headquarters on Monday.

An extraordinary PN Supreme Council meeting on February 22 appointed Ahmad Samsuri as the coalition’s new chairman after Muhyiddin stepped down from the post on December 30, 2025.

Muhyiddin said Bersatu had previously preferred for the coalition to be led by a party president, but respected PAS’ position in supporting Ahmad Samsuri for the role.

He added that the PN constitution does not require the chairman to be a party president, but states that the role should be filled by a more senior leader.


MACC: Former federal minister among 12 called in for questioning over RM1.11b semiconductor chip deal






MACC: Former federal minister among 12 called in for questioning over RM1.11b semiconductor chip deal



Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki speaks during a press conference at the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya, March 4, 2026. — Picture by Firdaus Latif

Wednesday, 04 Mar 2026 2:28 PM MYT


PUTRAJAYA, March 4 — The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission today confirmed that a former federal minister was among 12 individuals called in for questioning as part of an investigation into a government-backed semiconductor project worth RM1.11 billion.

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki however declined to confirm the former minister’s identity.


“The 12 witnesses, including the former minister, comprise individuals from the Economy Ministry, the Malaysian Investment Development Authority (Mida) and the Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry (Miti).

“We have also managed to obtain important documents from the relevant government agencies including Cabinet Papers that have been tabled in regard to the billion-ringgit project,” he told a press conference at the MACC headquarters here.


Azam said the ongoing investigation stemmed from complaints alleging abuse of power, governance breaches and fraud involving a project between the Malaysian government and UK-based firm Arm Holdings.


Earlier, the MACC issued a notice seeking information on the whereabouts of Chai Jin Shern, also known as James Chai, a former aide to PKR leader Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli.

Chai previously served as a special functions officer to Rafizi during the latter’s tenure as economy minister.


Azam said the probe involved Chai’s appointment at a firm that has a direct interest in the aforementioned billion-ringgit project following his departure from the Economy Ministry.

“To date, he has not given any response. A media statement was issued earlier today to request his return from the United Kingdom to assist in investigations,” Azam said.

Rafizi has characterised the probe as politically motivated.


Trump says Iran was ‘weeks from a weapon’ as he signals US Navy tanker escorts and contradicts Rubio





Trump says Iran was ‘weeks from a weapon’ as he signals US Navy tanker escorts and contradicts Rubio





This US Navy handout photo released by US Central Command public affairs shows an F/A-18F Super Hornet, attached to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 41, making an arrested landing on the flight deck of Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) in support of Operation Epic Fury on February 28, 2026. The United States and Israel launched a wave of strikes against targets in Iran on February 28, sparking swift retaliation by the Islamic republic which responded with missile attacks across the region. — US Navy handout/AFP pic

Wednesday, 04 Mar 2026 9:27 AM MYT


WASHINGTON, March 4 — President Donald Trump said yesterday the US Navy was ready to escort oil tankers through a crucial Gulf shipping route, as he justified his war on Iran by saying he believed Tehran was about to strike first.

Trump has given often conflicting explanations for the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran, while the president who once campaigned to end to America’s Middle Eastern wars has set out no firm endgame.


The attacks and Iran’s fiery response have engulfed the Middle East—while also causing global economic turmoil as shipping avoids the Strait of Hormuz near Iran, one of the world’s most vital shipping lanes.

Trump, whose own boasts of economic revival are now also under threat ahead of midterm elections later this year, moved to calm the jitters by saying US warships could help.


“If necessary, the United States Navy will begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, as soon as possible,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform.


The US president also ordered Washington to provide insurance for commercial shipping. US stocks cut their losses after the announcement, although crude prices continued to rise.


‘Knocked out’

With questions swirling about Trump’s justifications for his country’s biggest Middle Eastern entanglement for decades, the US leader earlier denied Israel had forced him into launching the strikes.

Trump’s comments appeared to contradict Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said on Monday that Washington only acted after learning that ally Israel was going to strike.

“I think they (Iran) were going to attack first. And I didn’t want that to happen,” Trump said as he hosted German Chancellor Friedrich Merz at the Oval Office.

“So, if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand.”

Fielding questions for the first time in public since launching the operation Saturday, Trump also said the US-Israel strikes had largely destroyed Iran’s military.

“Just about everything’s been knocked out,” Trump said, adding that Iran’s navy, air force and radar systems had all been taken out of action.

Trump however offered no firm plan for Iran’s future leadership, saying that “most of the people we had in mind are dead.”



He said that the “worst case” was that a replacement for Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei, who was killed in strikes on Saturday, could be just as bad.


‘Weeks from a weapon’

The US leader’s stance on “regime change” has been unclear, and toppling the Islamic republic was not among the four key goals for the operation that he gave on Monday.

One of those key objectives was stopping Iran’s nuclear programme, and US officials sought to back up Trump’s case by saying yesterday that Iran had been stringing Washington along in talks prior to the war.

“They basically could have been days or weeks away from a weapon,” one senior administration official told reporters on a call.😂😂😂

Trump meanwhile said it was “too late” for Iran to seek talks.

And the US officials confirmed that negotiator Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner had had no back-channel contact with the Iranians since Saturday’s strikes.

Germany’s Merz meanwhile voiced support yesterday for the US-Israeli war on Iran but said he hoped it would end soon “as soon as possible,” saying it was “damaging our economies.”

While praising Merz, Trump had harsh words for European allies Britain and Spain.

“This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with,” Trump said of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer who initially refused to let US forces use UK bases to attack Iran, before relenting.

Trump also threatened to cut off trade with “terrible” Spain, whose left-wing government also refused the use of its bases. — AFP


Malaysia Airlines to temporarily resume Jeddah, Madinah flights March 4–8 as Doha services stay suspended





Malaysia Airlines to temporarily resume Jeddah, Madinah flights March 4–8 as Doha services stay suspended



MAG said that as flights resume, Malaysia Airlines is taking proactive measures to safeguard operations, including using alternative flight paths to avoid affected regions. — Reuters pic

Wednesday, 04 Mar 2026 9:05 AM MYT


KUALA LUMPUR, March 4 — Malaysia Airlines will temporarily resume services to and from Jeddah (JED), and Madinah (MED) on March 4-8, 2026, following the suspension of services from February 28, 2026, due to airspace closures in parts of the Middle East.

However, services to Doha (DOH) would remain suspended until March 7, 2026, as the airline continues to assess the security situation, said Malaysia Aviation Group (MAG) in a statement yesterday.


All other flights, including services to London (LHR) and Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport (CDG), remain on schedule, operating on alternative routings well clear of the affected conflict zone.

“Affected passengers are being notified and assisted with alternative travel arrangements where required.

“Passengers are advised to update their contact details via ‘My Booking’ for timely updates,” said MAG.


Assistance is also available via Live Chat on the website, or contact the Malaysia Airlines Global Contact Centre at 1 300 88 3000 (within Malaysia) or +603 7843 3000 (outside Malaysia).

“The safety and well-being of our passengers and crew are our highest priorities,” said the group.


MAG said that as flights resume, Malaysia Airlines is taking proactive measures to safeguard operations, including using alternative flight paths to avoid affected regions; maintaining close coordination with aviation authorities and airport partners; strengthening in-flight safety and operational procedures; and keeping passengers informed with timely updates and support.

“Malaysia Airlines will continue to closely monitor developments and will take all necessary measures to ensure safe and reliable operations.

“The safety of both passengers and crew is our top priority,” stated MAG. — Bernama


Court sets June deadline to conclude prosecution in Lim Guan Eng undersea tunnel corruption trial





Court sets June deadline to conclude prosecution in Lim Guan Eng undersea tunnel corruption trial



The sessions court has directed that the corruption trial of Lim Guan Eng over the Penang undersea tunnel project be concluded by June this year. — Bernama pic

Wednesday, 04 Mar 2026 9:27 AM MYT


KUALA LUMPUR, March 4 — Sessions Court Judge Azura Alwi has directed that the corruption trial involving Lim Guan Eng over the Penang undersea tunnel and major roads project, currently at the prosecution stage, be concluded by June this year.

Azura said so after the 37th prosecution witness, businessman Datuk Seri G Gnanaraja, 44, requested an adjournment due to fever and cough, following over two hours of cross-examination yesterday.

“This case has dragged on long enough, so I must take control. My target is to conclude the prosecution’s case by June at the latest.

“I am granting an adjournment for today but require a medical certificate on the next trial date. Proceedings will resume on April 20 and 21,” said Azura.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin concurred, stating the prosecution also seeks an expeditious resolution.

“Only this witness (Gnanaraja) and the investigating officer remain for cross-examination. We too want this case concluded quickly. Our written submissions are ready, with only minor additions remaining,” he said.

Earlier during cross-examination, an unwell Gnanaraja questioned defence counsel Tiara Katrina Fuad’s line of questioning for raising the same issues.


“I’m unwell with a severe cough and fever. I thought Ms Tiara would ask new questions, but she kept asking the same things. I’ve already explained everything when Ramkarpal Singh questioned me,” he said.

Ramkarpal then interjected: “I think it’s about time the court takes control of proceedings, not the witness. If my learned friend is not doing anything for his own witness, I think it’s only best that the court tells him what that means. I’ll appreciate that.”

Azura clarified that counsel has the right to cross-examine, and the questions were not repetitive as they pertained to different recorded statements.

According to the first amended charge, Lim, 65, is accused of abusing his position as the then Penang chief minister to receive a bribe of RM3.3 million to assist a company owned by Zarul Ahmad in securing the Major Roads and Undersea Tunnel Construction Project in Penang, valued at RM6,34 billion.

The offence allegedly took place between January 2011 and August 2017 at the Chief Minister’s Office in Penang.

Under the second amended charge, the Bagan MP is accused of soliciting a 10 per cent cut of Zarul’s profits from the project, as payment for helping the businessman’s company secure it.

The solicitation allegedly took place near The Gardens Hotel, Lingkaran Syed Putra, Mid Valley City, between 12.30am and 2.00am in March 2011.

Additionally, Lim faces two charges of disposing of a couple of state-owned lots of land in Penang, valued at RM208.8 million, to a developer linked to the undersea tunnel project.

These offences were allegedly committed at the Penang State Land and Mines Office, Komtar, on February 17, 2015, and March 22, 2017. — Bernama

Israel led its lapdog (Maga) into a war with Iran




Rubio claim of Israeli role in US Iran attack reverberates, despite denial

Commentators across political spectrum, including MAGA base, seize on Rubio’s words amid shifting war justifications


US Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrives to brief Senators on US military action in Iran, at the US Capitol in Washington, DC [AFP]



By Joseph Stepansky
Published On 4 Mar 2026


Washington, DC – On Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio provided a looping justification for the US launching a war against Iran: Israel was planning to strike Iran, which would have prompted Tehran to strike the US assets in the region, requiring Washington to launch preemptive strikes on Iran.

Even as the administration of US President Donald Trump has sought to roll back claims made by several officials in recent days, they have continued to spark dismay across the political spectrum.


Recommended Stories




Rubio’s statement was particularly notable, given the assessment by many Iran analysts that the US-Israel war, which has led to regional retaliation from Iran, serves the interests not of Washington, but of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Washington is seen as having outsized leverage over Israel, to which it has provided more than $300bn in military aid since 1948, including $21bn during Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Trump, when asked about Rubio’s statement on Tuesday, appeared to offer a different characterisation, saying he launched the war because he “thought we were going to have a situation where we were going to be attacked”.

“They [Iran] were getting ready to attack Israel. They were gonna attack others,” he said.

The US president has spent the days since launching the initial strikes on Saturday arguing that the holistic threat posed by Iran justified the US-Israeli strikes, a position that experts say likely stands in contravention of both US and international law. The administration has provided scant evidence of a planned attack on US assets or that either Iran’s nuclear or ballistic programmes offered an immediate threat.

Rubio on Monday also sought to distance himself from his statements, claiming his words had been taken out of context.






Trump admin offers scant evidence on Iranian threat in ‘America First’ war




Trump admin offers scant evidence on Iranian threat in ‘America First’ war

War powers legislation talks reignite as Democrats push back on Trump’s justification for ‘preemptive’ strikes on Iran


US President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, DC [Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA]



By Joseph Stepansky
Published On 3 Mar 2026


Washington, DC – As the US and Israeli militaries expand their strikes on Iran, the administration of US President Donald Trump has alternated its justification for the war between preventing immediate attacks and countering the long-term existential threat of a nuclear Tehran.

This was on full display on Monday, with Trump and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth appearing to make the case that the culmination of Iran’s regional policies in the 47 years since the Islamic revolution, coupled with the future of its ballistic and nuclear programmes, represented an immediate threat to the US.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile, argued that Washington’s close ally Israel was planning to attack Iran. In which event, the administration expected Iran to strike US assets, therefore justifying launching a preemptive attack, he said.

To date, the administration has offered little clear evidence to support any of its claims, according to advocates and analysts, as well as Democratic lawmakers who have recently attended classified briefings.

“The reality is, they’ve put forth very little evidence, and that’s a huge problem,” Emma Belcher, the president of Ploughshares, a group that advocates for denuclearisation, told Al Jazeera.

“It says, one: They don’t think they need to [make the case] for the war; that they won’t necessarily be held to account for it,” Belcher said. “But it also says to me that the evidence quite possibly isn’t there, and that they want to avoid particular scrutiny.”

Republicans have largely coalesced around the administration’s messaging, even as Democrats have pledged to force votes on war powers legislation to assert constitutional authority over the president’s military action.



Iran accuses US and Israel of targeting schools and hospitals at UN meeting



Trump’s Iran war message: President uses evolving justification for attack



Trump contradicts Rubio, says Israel didn’t force him to launch war


Still, the administration remains in a tenuous political position as Trump’s Republican Party stares down midterm elections in November. Early public polling indicates little outright support from the US public, even as Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) base has been staid in its response.

But the more days that pass, and the more US service members are killed, the more likely that Trump will be confronted with the contradictions to his past anti-interventionist promises.

“The longer it goes on and the more costly it is in terms of lives… the more the lack of evidence becomes an albatross around the neck of the administration – one that it will have to account for come November,” according to Benjamin Radd, a senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center’s international relations department.


A kaleidoscope of claims

Speaking from the White House on Monday, Trump praised the “obliteration of Iran’s nuclear programme” in US strikes last June. But moments later, he claimed that efforts to rebuild that programme, coupled with Iran’s ballistic missile programme, represented a menace to the US.

“An Iranian regime armed with long-range missiles and nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat to the Middle East, but also to the American people,” Trump said. “Our country itself would be under threat, and it was very nearly under threat.”

Trump also said that, if not for US and Israeli attacks, Iran “would soon have had missiles capable of reaching our beautiful America”.

Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Washington, DC-based Arms Control Association (ACA) said any claims of immediate or middle-term threats posed by Iran in terms of their ballistic and nuclear power are not supported by available evidence.

That is significant, as such “imminent threats” are required for a president justify attacks on foreign countries under both US domestic law and international law, save for approval from Congress.



Rubio says US strikes on Iran were pre-emptive and necessary in Capitol Hill briefing



“Iran did not possess, prior to this attack, the capability to quickly enrich its highest uranium to bomb grades, and then to convert that into metal for constructing a bomb,” Kimball told Al Jazeera.

“At the soonest, it might have taken many, many months to do that, but Iran does not have access to its 60 percent highly-enriched uranium. Its conversion facility is damaged and idle. Its major uranium enrichment facilities have been severely damaged by the US strikes in 2025.”

He explained that despite having “significant conventional short and medium range ballistic missile capabilities”, Iran has said it has imposed 2,000km (1,200-mile) limits on its ballistic missile range, and is not near having an intercontinental ballistic missile capability.

The “latest [US intelligence] assessment is that Iran could, if a decision is made, have an ICBM capability by 2035. So Iran is nowhere close to having an ICBM threat that could be called imminent,” he said, referring to intercontinental ballistic missiles, which have a range of at least 5,000km (3,400 miles).


Democrats say no new intelligence

Secretary of State Rubio on Monday said there “absolutely was an imminent threat” presented by Iran.

“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action,” he said. “We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”

But top Democrats who received classified intelligence briefings in recent days said they had not been provided with evidence to justify the attack.



Trump: this was the best chance to strike Iran’s ‘sick and sinister regime’



“I’m on two committees that give me access to a lot of classified information; there was no imminent threat from Iran to the United States that warrants sending our sons and daughters into yet another war in the Middle East,” Senator Tim Kaine, who sits on both the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, told CNN on Saturday.

Senator Mark Warner, who was briefed on classified intelligence related to Iran last week as part of the “gang of eight”, a collection of the top lawmakers from both parties in Congress, told the network: “I saw no intelligence that Iran was on the verge of launching any kind of preemptive strike against the United States of America”.

Several sources speaking to both the Reuters news agency and the Associated Press, following a closed-door briefing of congressional staff on Sunday, said the administration presented no evidence that Iran was planning a preemptive strike, and had instead focused on a more generalised threat posed by Iran and its allies to US troops and assets in the region.


Trump looking for quick success


All told, the Trump administration appears to be arguing that “Iran has been a national security threat to the United States since 1979… that Iran was responsible for more American lives being killed than any other state or non-state actor; that Iran has never been held to account for this”, according to the Burkle Center’s Radd.

Trump, therefore, appears to be taking the position that given the totality of Iranian actions, including during recent indirect nuclear talks, the US “has no choice but to perceive Iran as an imminent threat”.

Oman’s foreign minister, who mediated the talks, had pushed back on the administration’s characterisation, maintaining that “significant progress” had been made before the US-Israeli attacks.

Radd noted that under the War Powers Act of 1973, a US president has between 60 and 90 days to withdraw forces deployed without congressional approval. Therefore, Trump appears to be saying, “We’re not obliged to prove to Congress any of that if we can conduct and execute this operation within the 60 to 90 day window,” he said.

Meanwhile, Ploughshare’s Belcher said that the administration’s own actions led to the current situation with Iran.

She pointed to Trump’s withdrawal of The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, which had seen the US impose maximum sanctions on Iran, and Iran, in turn, begin enriching uranium beyond the levels laid out in the agreement. Trump also derailed nuclear talks last year by launching attacks on Iran.

“We’re in this situation precisely because President Trump gave up on an agreement that was negotiated by his predecessor,” Belcher said. “He gave up on diplomacy.”


‘America First’ war?

In his speech on Monday, Hegseth, in particular, appeared to try to frame the war within Trump’s political worldview, pledging to “finish this on America First conditions”.

He drew a contrast with the US invasion of Iraq, describing the attacks on Iran as a “clear, devastating, decisive mission”.

“Destroy the missile threat, destroy the navy – no nukes,” he said.

He also sought to draw a distinction between a “so-called regime-change war” and US attacks that happened to lead to regime change. As of Monday, US strikes had killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and several top officials, but the ruling government has remained intact.



Netanyahu: Iran would 'threaten all of humanity' with nuclear weapon



Hegseth said that the US is unleashing attacks “all on our terms, with maximum authorities, no stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars”.

It remains unclear how the message will resonate with the US public.

A Reuters-Ipsos poll released on Sunday suggested dismal approval for Trump’s strikes, but also indicated that large swaths of Americans were unsure about the conflict.

That could create opportunities for those challenging Trump’s actions and his justification for them.

“I think it does seem as though the narrative is still up for grabs,” Belcher said.


Al Jazeera investigation: Iran girls’ school targeting likely ‘deliberate’




Al Jazeera investigation: Iran girls’ school targeting likely ‘deliberate’

Al Jazeera investigation raises questions over deadliest single attack of war on Iran that killed 165 schoolgirls and staff


The aftermath of an Israel strike on a school in Minab, Iran [Abbas Zakeri/Mehr News/WANA via Reuters]



By Al Jazeera Staff
Published On 3 Mar 2026


On Saturday morning, February 28, 2026, dozens of girls gathered at the “Shajareh Tayyebeh” (The Good Tree) school in the city of Minab in southern Iran when Israel and the United States began initial strikes on the country.

As the students began their studies, missiles struck the school, destroying the building and causing the roof to collapse on top of the children and their teachers.

Iranian authorities have put the final death toll at 165 people, most of them girls aged between 7 and 12. At least 95 other people were wounded in the attack.

As the images of the carnage spread on social media platforms, Israeli and US authorities sought to distance themselves from the attack.

Spokespeople for the US Department of Defense and the Israeli army told Time magazine and The Associated Press news agency that they were unaware that a school had been hit.

Some websites and social media accounts linked to Israel claimed the site was “part of an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps base”.

However, an analysis by Al Jazeera’s digital investigations unit of satellite imagery compiled over more than a decade, as well as recent video clips, published news reports and statements from official Iranian sources, tells a very different story.

The findings reveal that the school had been clearly separate from an adjacent military site for at least 10 years.

The investigation also shows that the strike pattern raises fundamental questions about the accuracy of intelligence information on which the bombing was based.

It may even raise questions about whether the strike was a deliberate targeting of the school.


The importance of Minab and the targeted military square

To understand the motives for including Minab in the first US-Israeli targets, the city must be placed within its broader geostrategic context.

Minab is located in Hormozgan in southeastern Iran, a province of enormous military importance as it directly overlooks the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf waters, making it a key hub for the operations of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) naval forces, NEDSA.

The IRGC Navy embraces what is known as an “asymmetric warfare” strategy that relies on deploying fast boats, drones, and coastal missile platforms capable of disrupting shipping or targeting hostile naval vessels.

In this context, the “Sayyid al-Shuhada” military complex in Minab stands out; it includes key headquarters, most notably that of the “Asif Brigade”.

The Asif missile brigade is considered one of the most important strike arms of the IRGC Navy. By reviewing open sources and tracking official Iranian records, important details emerge about the school itself: The Shajareh Tayyebeh school in Minab is part of a broad network of schools structurally and administratively affiliated with the IRGC Navy.

These schools are classified as nonprofit institutions and are primarily intended to provide educational services to the sons and daughters of members of the IRGC Navy.

Registration messages posted on the channel on the Iranian messaging app, “Baleh”- a channel dedicated to communicating with parents of pre-school children at one school in the Shajareh Tayyebeh network – show that admission procedures give priority to the children of military personnel.

In more than one announcement, the children of IRGC Navy members are explicitly invited to attend on specific days to complete first-grade enrolment, with another notice stating that registration for children of non-members opens on different days.

However, this administrative link (to the IRGC) or the identity of the parents does not change the schools’ legal status as civilian facilities under international humanitarian law, unless they were being used in military operations.

And the children who attend them – whether they are the children of military personnel or civilians – remain protected people with special protection in armed conflicts, including the prohibition on intentionally targeting them or carrying out attacks that could harm them.

The Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor has called the bombing of the school as a “horrific crime and a consolidation of the collapse of civilian protection”, stressing in a statement that the mere presence of military facilities or bases nearby does not change the school’s civilian character, and does not absolve US and Israeli forces of their legal obligation to carefully verify the nature of the target before striking it.

The Monitor emphasised that children and teaching staff remain, in all circumstances, “protected persons” under international humanitarian law, and that any attack that fails to distinguish between them and potential military targets constitutes a serious violation.


What do we know about the strike and its timing?

On Saturday morning, the first day of the school week in Iran, US-Israeli strikes began on the country. Air raids started hitting various sites in the city of Minab and Hormozgan province.

But life in general was proceeding in a near-normal manner; children went to their schools, and photos and videos showed almost normal traffic on the roads surrounding the school.

Documented satellite images from that day show that the school building was still completely intact and had not been hit by any strike until 10:23am local time (06:53 GMT).


[Al Jazeera]


Local and official Iranian sources say that by 10:45am (07:15 GMT), the school was directly hit by a guided missile.

To verify the scope and nature of the strike, Al Jazeera’s Digital Investigations Unit analysed two video clips posted on Telegram shortly after the bombing, and precisely geolocated each by matching visible landmarks with satellite imagery.

The first clip was filmed from a point southwest of the complex (at coordinates: 27°06’28.43″ N, 57°04’26.17″ E) and documents the first moments of smoke rising from inside the military block affiliated with the Sayyid al-Shuhada base (Asif Brigade), proving that the military base was indeed among the targets hit.

The second clip, however, the most indicative in this investigation, was filmed from a point southeast of the complex (at coordinates: 27°06’23.77″ N, 57°05’05.97″ E) and provides a wide viewing angle encompassing the entire complex.


[Al Jazeera]


This clip clearly shows two separate columns of thick black smoke rising simultaneously: The first from deep inside the military base, and the second from the geographically independent site of the girls’ school.

The visible distance between the two columns matches the distance separating the two areas as shown by the satellite imagery. This refutes any claim that the damage to the school was caused by shrapnel flying from the adjacent base, and strongly indicates that the school building was subjected to a direct, separate strike.


Timeline of separating the civilian building from the military base

To establish the architectural separation and rebut claims that the bombed building was an active barracks, the investigation team conducted a historical trace of archived satellite images via Google Earth covering the period from 2013 up to just before the 2026 attack. The school site coordinates are (27°06’35.4″N 57°05’05.1″E).

The chronological review reveals deliberate engineering to separate this part of the military complex and convert it entirely to civilian use over the past 10 years
.


A 2013 satellite image showing the school area as a contiguous part fully integrated within the wall of the Sayyid al-Shuhada military complex and surrounded by guard towers [Google Earth/Al Jazeera]


The images show that the school building and its surrounding area were a connected, integrated part of the main military complex. The outer perimeter wall was unbroken, and the complex was surrounded by five security watchtowers positioned around the corners of the entire compound. There was only one main entry gate serving the whole complex, and the internal road network connected all buildings without barriers.

It can be said with a degree of confidence that, in 2013, the site was used exclusively as a military barracks with a strict security character, as there was no indication of an independent civilian use of any part of the complex.

But this changed radically in 2016. Satellite images dated September 6, 2016 capture the main turning point, when new internal walls were created and built, fully and tightly separating the school building area from the rest of the military block.

At the same time, two of the watch towers overseeing this block were dismantled and removed. Most importantly, three new external gates were opened directly onto the public street to serve students’ and staff entry and exit.


A 2016 aerial shot documenting the radical turning point, as isolating walls were built and three independent external gates were opened to separate the school building from the military barracks [Google Earth/Al Jazeera]


This radical modification documents the construction process and the official removal of the building from the military barracks system, converting it to an independent civilian purpose with dedicated entrances that do not pass through military checkpoints and are 200 to 300 metres (650 to 1000ft) away.

The civilian use becomes clearer over time. Images taken on May 5, 2018 show intense civilian activity: Civilian cars can be seen lined up at the new external entrances. The internal courtyard was also equipped with a children’s sports field, and the internal walls were painted in multiple colours with bright mural drawings appropriate to the students’ age group.


A 2018 satellite image confirming the site’s civilian use, showing a children’s sports field and civilian cars lined up in front of the school’s external gate [Google Earth/Al Jazeera]


This documentation can be regarded as definitive visual confirmation that the building was operating at full capacity as a primary school. These features (such as the playground, wall drawings, and the presence of civilian cars) are the same ones that later appeared in videos documenting residents storming the school on the day of the tragedy to search for their daughters.
The Martyr Absalan clinic as corroborating evidence

To prove that the attacking party was (or should have been) precisely aware of the site’s updated layout, we traced the newest construction projects in the same area.

On January 14, 2025 (just one year before the attack), the commander-in-chief of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Major-General Hossein Salami, visited the city of Minab to inaugurate the Martyr Absalan Specialised Clinic.

The clinic, which cost 100 billion Iranian tomans (about $2m), was built on an area of 5,700 square metres (61,354 square feet) at another corner of the same original military complex – specifically on Resalat Street – to serve residents of eastern Hormozgan province.

Reports published to cover the clinic’s opening indicate it was equipped with the latest CT imaging devices, ultrasound equipment, and laboratories, and that it offered civilian medical specialities such as paediatrics, obstetrics and gynaecology, and dentistry – confirming its civilian nature.


The adjacent Martyr Absalan Specialised Clinic (lower centre, in yellow), which opened in early 2025 and was separated by an independent civilian entrance, and which sustained no damage during the latest bombardment [Google Earth/Al Jazeera]


As with the school years earlier, building the clinic required spatial separation from the military base. After the Martyr Absalan clinic opened in January 2025, a separate gate was opened to connect it directly to the external street to receive civilian patients, and a dedicated car park was established – measures mirroring what the school underwent when it was separated from the complex and given three independent gates.

Thus, what had been a single unified military complex became three independent sectors, clearly distinguishable in satellite imagery: The Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ school, separated since 2016 with its own walls and gates; the Martyr Absalan Specialised Clinic, separated since early 2025 with an independent civilian entrance; and the Sayyid al-Shuhada military complex, which remained a closed and active site.

When the US-Israeli attack began on the morning of February 28, 2026, analysis of the strike locations revealed an odd pattern: Missiles hit the military base and the school, but bypassed the specialised clinic complex located between the two without touching it.

This exclusion cannot be explained as a coincidence; it strongly indicates that the executing party was operating with coordinates and maps that distinguished between the complex’s different facilities.


A visual analysis of missile impact sites shows the military base targeted (red area) and the school (green area), while the clinic complex (yellow area) was precisely left intact [Al Jazeera]


Here lies the fundamental contradiction exposed by this investigation: If the intelligence was up to date enough to spare a clinic that had been open for only one year, how did it fail to identify an elementary school that had been separated from the military complex and had become a clearly defined civilian institution for more than 10 years?

This contradiction leaves only two possibilities: Either the bombing of the school was the result of a grave intelligence failure caused by reliance on outdated databases that did not keep pace with successive changes in the complex’s layout, or it was a deliberate strike based on a linkage that treats the school as part of the military system.


Misleading claims

No sooner than when plumes of smoke began to rise from the school’s rubble than accounts on the X platform affiliated with, or sympathetic to, Israeli parties began circulating videos and images claiming the school had not been struck from the outside, but was destroyed after an Iranian air defence missile missed its target and fell back to the ground.

This narrative replicates the same tactic used during the bombing of al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza in October 2023, when Israel rushed to accuse the Palestinian resistance of responsibility for the massacre via a rocket that missed its target.

https://x.com/ChayasClan/status/2027742261480452476

However, open-source verification tools – specifically reverse image searches and geolocation using visual landmarks – quickly revealed that the most widely shared image in this campaign, which is claimed to show the impact of a failed Iranian missile that fell on the school, has nothing to do with the city of Minab in the first place.

By matching the terrain and landmarks visible in the image – especially the snow-covered mountains in the background – with satellite imagery, it became clear that it relates to an incident that occurred on the outskirts of Zanjan in northwestern Iran, about 1,300km (808 miles) from Minab.

The irony is that the nature of the two locations alone is enough to refute the claim: Minab is a coastal city in the far southeast overlooking the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz, with a tropical climate and no snowfall, while Zanjan is a mountainous city in the northwest that is covered with snow in winter.

Iranian sources said what happened in Zanjan that day was a successful interception operation carried out by air defence units affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, during which two hostile drones were shot down. It was not possible to independently verify this information.

The Minab school incident is not an exception in the record of civilian facilities being targeted by the US and Israeli militaries; rather, it falls within a documented pattern stretching across decades of military operations and attacks, in which the same scene recurs: Strikes hit schools, hospitals, and civilian shelters, followed by immediate denial or shifting of blame to the other side, before independent investigations later reveal the falsity of official claims.

In April 1970, Israeli Phantom fighter jets bombed the Bahr al-Baqar elementary school in Egypt’s Sharqia governorate, killing 46 children out of 130 who were in their classrooms that morning.

Israel claimed the school was an Egyptian military facility, and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan said at the time that “the Egyptians may have put elementary school pupils in a military base.”

But an Israeli pilot who took part in the raid and was captured during the October 1973 war later revealed it had been a deliberate attack and that they knew it was merely a school.

In February 1991, the US Air Force dropped two “smart” bombs on the Amiriyah civilian shelter in Baghdad, killing at least 408 civilians – most of them women, children, and the elderly.

Washington said the facility had been turned into a military command centre, but Human Rights Watch later showed that the building bore clear markings indicating it was a public shelter and that large numbers of civilians were using it throughout the air campaign.

In April 1996, the Israeli army shelled the headquarters of the Fijian battalion of the UNIFIL international force in the town of Qana in southern Lebanon, where about 800 Lebanese civilians were taking refuge inside the UN compound. One hundred and six people were killed and more than 116 wounded.

Israel claimed it was providing cover for a special unit that had come under mortar fire from near the compound, but a UN investigation later concluded the Israeli bombardment was deliberate, citing video recordings showing an Israeli unmanned reconnaissance aircraft over the compound before the shelling began.

In October 2015, a US AC-130 aircraft bombed a Doctors Without Borders (known by the French acronym, MSF) hospital in the Afghan city of Kunduz, killing 42 people, including 24 patients and 14 staff members. The organisation had previously provided the hospital’s coordinates to all parties to the conflict. The US account changed several times – from describing the strike as “collateral damage” to claiming Afghan forces had requested it – before the US commander acknowledged that the decision was entirely American.

In the Gaza Strip, attacks on educational facilities have reached an unprecedented level since October 2023. By the early months of 2025, 778 of the enclave’s 815 schools had been partially or completely destroyed – about 95.5% of all schools. UNRWA reported that about one million displaced people sought refuge in its schools, which had been turned into shelters; nevertheless, at least 1,000 people were killed and 2,527 wounded inside these schools through July 2025. 
Journalistic sources also documented that the Israeli army set up a “special strikes cell” to target schools systematically, classifying them as “centres of gravity”.


People and rescue teams search for victims following an Israel strike on a school in Minab [Abbas Zakeri/Mehr News/WANA via Reuters]


Returning to the school in Minab, testimony by Shiva Amilairad, a representative of the Coordinating Council of Iranian Teachers’ Trade Unions, to Time magazine indicates that the decision to evacuate the school was made as soon as the US-Israeli attacks began. But, she said, the time between the warning issued by Iranian authorities (after detecting attacks on the city) and the moment the missile struck was far too short, and most parents were unable to reach the school to pick up their daughters.

She also confirmed that hospital morgue capacity was exhausted, forcing authorities to use mobile refrigerated trucks to preserve the bodies of the young girls; some families lost more than one child in the same incident.

The attackers’ ability to spare newly established adjacent facilities (such as the Martyr Absalan clinic) and their glaring failure to avoid an elementary school operating at full capacity and packed with 170 girls leaves us with two scenarios, both unequivocally condemnatory: Either US and Israeli forces relied, in striking the vicinity of the Asif Brigade, on a very old, outdated intelligence target bank (dating to before 2013), which would constitute grave negligence and reckless disregard for civilian lives; or the strike was carried out deliberately and with prior knowledge to inflict maximum societal shock and undermine popular support for Iran’s military establishment.


***


The shailoks' evil is flabbergastingly horrendous, beyond civilised behaviour, worse than the German Nazis, far far worse.






How many countries has the US bombed since 2001, and how much has it cost?




How many countries has the US bombed since 2001, and how much has it cost?

Since 9/11, the US has engaged in three full-scale wars, bombing at least 10 countries under four presidents


(Al Jazeera)
By Marium Ali
Published On 3 Mar 2026


Despite promising to end United States involvement in costly and destructive foreign wars, President Donald Trump, together with Israel, has launched a massive military assault on Iran, targeting its leadership and nuclear and missile infrastructure.

Much like his predecessors, Trump has relied on military force to pursue US strategic interests, continuing a pattern that has defined US foreign policy for more than two decades.

Since the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the US capital, the US has engaged in three full-scale wars and bombed at least 10 countries in operations ranging from drone strikes to invasions, often multiple times within a single year.

The graphic below shows all the countries the US has bombed since 2001.

These may not include all military strikes, particularly covert or special operations.

The US has bombed at least 10 countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Nigeria and Iran since 2001. [Al Jazeera]


The cost of decades of war

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, President George W Bush launched what he called a “war on terror”, a global military campaign that reshaped US foreign policy and triggered wars, invasions and air strikes across numerous countries.

According to an analysis by Brown University’s Watson Institute of International & Public Affairs, US-led wars since 2001 have directly caused the deaths of about 940,000 people across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and other conflict zones.

This does not include indirect deaths, namely those caused by loss of access to food, healthcare or war-related diseases.


(Al Jazeera)


The US has spent an estimated $5.8 trillion funding its more than two decades of conflict.

This includes $2.1 trillion spent by the Department of Defense (DOD), $1.1 trillion by Homeland Security, $884bn to increase the DOD base budget, $465bn on veterans’ medical care and an additional $1 trillion in interest payments on loans taken out to fund the wars.

In addition to the $5.8 trillion already spent, the US is expected to have to lay out at least another $2.2 trillion for veterans’ care over the next 30 years.

This would bring the total estimated cost of US wars since 2001 to $8 trillion.


Afghanistan war (2001-2021)

The first and most direct response to 9/11 was the invasion of Afghanistan to dismantle al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power.

On October 7, 2001, the US launched Operation Enduring Freedom.

The initial invasion succeeded in toppling the Taliban regime within just a few weeks. However, armed resistance groups mounted a prolonged resistance against US and coalition forces.

The war went on to become the longest conflict in US history, spanning four presidencies and lasting 20 years until the final withdrawal in 2021, after which the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan.

An estimated 241,000 people died as a direct result of the war, according to an analysis from Brown University’s Costs of War project. Hundreds of thousands more people, mostly civilians, died due to hunger, disease and injuries caused by the war.



At least 3,586 soldiers from the US and its NATO allies were killed in the war, which is estimated to have cost $2.26 trillion for the US, according to the Cost of War project.


Iraq war (2003-2011)

On March 20, 2003, Bush launched a second war, this time in Iraq, claiming that President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction – a claim that proved to be false.

On May 1, 2003, Bush declared “mission accomplished” and the end of major combat operations in Iraq.

Bush on board the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, where he declared combat operations in Iraq over on May 1, 2003 [Larry Downing/Reuters]


However, the subsequent years were defined by violence from armed groups and a power vacuum that fuelled the rise of ISIL (ISIS).

In 2008, Bush agreed to withdraw US combat troops, a process completed in 2011 under President Barack Obama.


The drone wars: Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen

Although not declared wars, the US has also expanded its air and drone campaigns.

Beginning in the mid-2000s, the CIA launched drone strikes inside Pakistan’s tribal areas along the Afghan border, targeting al-Qaeda and Taliban figures believed to be operating there. These strikes marked the early expansion of remote warfare.

Obama dramatically expanded the drone strikes in Pakistan, particularly in the early years of his presidency.

At the same time, the US conducted air strikes in Somalia against suspected al-Qaeda affiliates, later targeting fighters linked to al-Shabab as that armed group grew in strength.

In Yemen, US forces carried out missile and drone strikes against al-Qaeda leaders.


Libya intervention

In 2011 during an uprising against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, the US joined a NATO-led intervention in Libya. American forces launched air and missile strikes to enforce a no-fly zone.

Gaddafi was overthrown and killed, and Libya descended into prolonged instability and factional fighting.


Iraq and Syria

From 2014 onwards, the US intervened in the Syrian war with the stated goal of defeating ISIL. Building on its campaign in Iraq, the US conducted sustained air strikes in Syria while supporting local partner forces on the ground.

In Iraq, US forces advised Iraqi troops, fought ISIL remnants and tried to counter Iranian influence, highlighted by a Trump-ordered 2020 strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.


Why Britain’s Air Defence Destroyer HMS Duncan Can’t Protect Key Bases From Iranian Strikes


Military Watch: 


Why Britain’s Air Defence Destroyer HMS Duncan Can’t Protect Key Bases From Iranian Strikes

Middle East , Naval


The British Ministry of Defence was reported on March 3 to have decided to dispatch the Type 45 class destroyer HMS Duncan to Cyprus to help defend British military facilities there, after several reports indicated that multiple Iranian drones had targeted RAF Akrotiri, a major Royal Air Force base. This has occurred amid a broader buildup by multiple NATO member states in the theatre of operations, including France, Germany and Greece, as the growing depletion of the air defences of the United States, Israel and their strategic partners in the Gulf region has raised serious questions regarding how long they can sustain their assault against Iran. The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fields one of the largest arsenals of ballistic missiles and single use attack drones in the world, and has widely targeted the U.S. and its strategic partners’ military facilities, after the United States and Israel launched attacks on targets across Iran on February 28. 

British Royal Navy Type 45 Class Destroyer HMS Duncan
British Royal Navy Type 45 Class Destroyer HMS Duncan

The Type 45 is a heavily specialised air defence destroyer, and lacks a cruise missile strike capability or any significant offensive capabilities against surface ships or ground targets. Despite this specialisation, its air defence capabilities remain highly limited, particularly compared to those of U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke class destroyers deployed in the Middle East. Against drone attacks, Type 45 class ships are highly prone to being overwhelmed, as they carry some of the smallest missile arsenals in the world, with just 48 vertical launch cells. To place the limitations of the ships’ arsenals in perspective, Arleigh Burke class destroyers integrate 96 vertical launch cells, while Chinese Type 055 class destroyers integrate 112 cells. With Iranian forces having deployed swarms of hundreds of attack drones in the past, the Type 45 is far from an optimal asset to engage them. 

Iranian Khorramshahr Ballistic Missile Launch
Iranian Khorramshahr Ballistic Missile Launch

In spite of its focus on air defence operations, Type 45 class destroyers have no ballistic missile defence capabilities, again contrasting to Arleigh Burke Class ships which integrate a multi-layered networks built around the SM-2, SM-3 and SM-6 anti-ballistic missiles. At a Defence Select Committee in early 2021 it was highlighted that this had left the British Armed Forces without any maritime ballistic missile defence capability. Dr Sidharth Kaushal, a research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, stressed “the absence of a capability to counter anti-ship ballistic missiles on the Type 45 destroyer.” “That was discussed in the 2015 strategic defence and security review, as part of a wider ballistic missile defence capability for the vessel, but it was absent in this review, which I thought was noteworthy,” he added. 

Type 45 Class Destroyer Launches Aster Missile - These Lack a Ballistic Missile Defence Capability
Type 45 Class Destroyer Launches Aster Missile - These Lack a Ballistic Missile Defence Capability

Regarding the Type 45’s inability to defend against ballistic missile attacks, Rear Admiral Alex Burton in 2021 similarly observed: “one of the gaping holes within the defence review is an anti-ballistic missile defence mechanism, both at sea and ashore.” “There is a gaping hole in our ability to defend a carrier against a ballistic missile without the support of our allies… The Navy has been clear that there has been a national capability gap, for the last 10 years, at least, in an anti-ballistic missile defence capability,” he added. Although Type 45 class destroyers are scheduled to be modernised with subsystems and new missiles that will allow them to defend against ballistic missile attacks under the Sea Viper Evolution Programme, this will only meet required standards in the late 2030s or early 2040s. Thus while the deployment of a Type 45 class destroyer will represent a show of force, its practical utility remains limited. Moreover, Iran’s advanced anti-ship ballistic missile capabilities may lead it to escalate by seeking to fire on the vessel, which represents a high value target for such strikes. 


***


Used to be one of the best navies, now RN has gone to the dogs🙄🫩🥴