analysts

An analyst’s missed remarks and U.S. intelligence systems that weren’t connected to one another are among the missteps that investigators have surfaced while probing the cause of a missile strike on an Iranian school that killed an estimated 120 children, people familiar with the matter said.

Years before the U.S. attacked Iran at the end of February, an intelligence analyst examining information about potential future strike targets in Iran noticed changes at a site the U.S. had previously characterized as a naval facility belonging to the elite wing of the Iranian military in Minab city in the southeast of the country. It was, in fact, now an elementary school.

The analyst remarked on changes at the site in a digital intelligence tool, but that tool wasn’t linked up to the official intelligence database that the U.S. uses to develop strike targets and the information was never conveyed to military commanders, according to people familiar with the matter who declined to be named discussing sensitive topics.

On Feb. 28, when President Trump announced the start of major combat operations against Iran, a missile struck the school. The attack killed an estimated 120 children, and nearly 200 people in all, representing the worst incident of civilian harm resulting from U.S. operations in decades.

The analyst’s remarks, which one of the people familiar with the matter said were submitted in 2019, were never heeded, and the same building was reviewed several more times over the following years without anyone updating the targeting database. These discoveries are among the issues explored in a Pentagon investigation into the school strike, the people said. The results of the probe have not been publicly released.

A Pentagon official said the incident remains under investigation and that the agency has no updates to provide. On Wednesday, Trump said it may not ever be possible to determine fault and that he doesn’t think the U.S. was to blame.

The details unearthed as part of the Pentagon investigation underscore long-standing weaknesses in the U.S. military’s targeting system, one that was supposed to be improved years ago. Upgrades have instead been beset by delays, and yet they’ve grown all the more urgent with the spread of AI. Some tout the technology as a possible solution to targeting woes while others worry it could scale and accelerate the harms of war.

The investigation into the school strike was submitted in April but remains under review at U.S. Central Command, the military theater and combatant command known as Centcom that is responsible for carrying out combat operations against Iran, according to one of the people familiar with the matter.

Centcom commander Brad Cooper, a four-star Navy admiral, ordered the investigation and appointed an Air Force general from outside the command with the intention of ensuring a thorough, independent review, the person said.

The analyst’s written remarks about the school, the fact that they were entered into a digital system in 2019 that wasn’t connected to the official intelligence database and the current status of the investigation into the strike have not been previously reported. The New York Times had previously reported that an analyst noticed the building appeared to be a school several years ago and informed one other person. Targeting officials were using imagery that hadn’t been updated in seven years, according to the Times.

There are significant and long-standing gaps in how the Pentagon analyzes potential strike targets, according to former senior intelligence officials and others familiar with the matter. They declined to be named to discuss sensitive matters.

At least two intelligence database systems used for inputting remarks based on imagery, for example, have historically not been connected to the official and authoritative targeting database, people familiar with the platforms said, creating a coordination challenge that continues today.

In some cases during the mid-2010s, targeting data for historically low-priority locations where the U.S. had little historical battle experience, such as Syria, proved to be 10 or 20 years old, according to one of the former senior intelligence officials. Some intelligence staff worked double shifts and weekends at that time to manually update the system.

Starting in 2017, the intelligence enterprise undertook a similar effort to update several thousands of outdated targets in North Korea after relations between Washington and Pyongyang rapidly deteriorated, people familiar with the matter said, calling in satellites and other efforts to capture new, clear imagery as well as other types of intelligence. It took more than a year to update critical targeting information.

A legacy database known as MIDB was created in the 1980s and often relies on manual input. The Pentagon plans to replace MIDB with a machine-assisted version known as MARS that will introduce more automation.

A recently revised Pentagon doctrine outlined the challenges of integrating the many systems used to identify military targets: “The process of targeting occurs on many levels and in many locations simultaneously, yet no single interoperable solution has emerged or been established,” according to the non-public targeting document revised in April and reviewed by Bloomberg. “The entire joint targeting enterprise should seamlessly share well-understood, standardized representations of target intelligence and data and not rely on local databases.”

The MIDB and MARS systems are now both in use, but the effort to shift entirely to MARS is years behind schedule, and authoritative targeting data still relies on MIDB, according to the targeting doctrine.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2020, during Trump’s first term, described MIDB as having “long-standing deficiencies” and said it’s “unable to meet current needs.” And yet six years later, the Pentagon’s targeting doctrine still describes the system as the authoritative, all-source repository of worldwide general military and target intelligence, serving as the national database for all target lists and no-strike lists and a baseline source of intelligence on installations, facilities, military forces and population concentrations.

The characterizations of MIDB in the Pentagon’s latest targeting doctrine haven’t been previously reported.

The hope of some targeting experts is that linking digital systems and more AI will bring down targeting errors in future. An automated check against public sites such as Google Maps, for example, may help flag an anomaly for human review. The Pentagon introduced an agentic AI effort along these lines Thursday.

The Defense Intelligence Agency, an agency responsible for both MIDB and MARS didn’t directly address a request from Bloomberg for comment on MIDB’s deficiencies, delays in the MARS transition or the mislabeled school site. An agency spokesperson said its foundational military intelligence analysts conduct comprehensive analysis of infrastructure and the operational environment, drawing on all intelligence sources to produce expert intelligence analysis and produce and maintain foundational military intelligence.

Such sources can span not only satellite pictures and other imagery analysis, but also signals intelligence, human intelligence and more, the spokesperson said. Combatant commands rely on expert analytic support from these all-source analysts for operational planning and execution, including intelligence for targeting, the spokesperson said.

“DIA works in close coordination with combatant commands and Intelligence Community partners to ensure decisionmakers have the best available intelligence for our national security,” the spokesperson said in a written comment.

Under the latest U.S. targeting doctrine, military commanders are responsible for the decision to prioritize and strike a target. Along with planners, commanders are also required to distinguish between military objectives and civilian ones that are not lawful military objectives for lethal targeting.

A combatant command should establish guidance to mitigate civilian injuries and consider criteria for positive identification of a target, according to an updated section of the Pentagon’s targeting doctrine. A spokesperson for the Joint Staff, the Pentagon’s senior military staff, described that section as a “key update.”

Once a combatant command such as Centcom has assembled a target list, the joint-force commander may also initiate an additional “optional process” called target vetting to assess the accuracy of the intelligence behind the targeting, according to joint targeting doctrine reviewed by Bloomberg. As part of this process, officials would review any potential disagreements about the characterization of a target and any new imagery, the former senior intelligence officials familiar with the process said.

It would be “unthinkable” for a commander not to undertake this target vetting process for attacks planned on the opening day of a new military campaign, one of the former senior intelligence officials said. Centcom vetted targets leading up to the operations against Iran, according to the person familiar with the matter. It wasn’t clear, however, whether Centcom initiated the optional vetting process that would’ve required coordination across intelligence community agencies and a recheck of the underlying information and possibly any new imagery.

Centcom didn’t respond to Bloomberg’s request for comment on the target vetting. A spokesperson for the Joint Staff declined to comment, citing the ongoing investigation.

Jack Shanahan, a former Pentagon director for defense intelligence and retired three-star Air Force general, said there is no excuse for a combatant command to not review and validate the accuracy of information provided for every targeting package. Combatant commanders have the ultimate responsibility for validating the accuracy of targets, he said.

Shanahan described targeting in an interview as a “moribund career field” that had atrophied over two decades while the U.S. military focused on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks instead of traditional combat operations. In 2017, he said, he struggled to recruit and fill targeting roles. “We knew there was a dangerous shortage in the number of trained and experienced targeting personnel and weapons effects experts,” he said. “We also knew this would become a major problem in future conventional operations.”

In the days following the Iran school strike, Trump accused Iran of conducting the attack, though he has offered no evidence. Last week, Trump said “mistakes are made and war is nasty” when asked about the strike, committed to releasing the findings of the investigation and added that he’ll accept the results.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in mid-March that the investigation “will take as long as necessary to address all the matters surrounding the incident” and that his department would “share it when we have it, absolutely.”

Dozens of members of Congress have since demanded answers about what happened. The group Human Rights Activists in Iran said it’s documented the killings of more than 1,700 civilians in the first month of the war.

Emily Tripp, director of the nonprofit group Airwars, a watchdog that logs civilian harm in conflict zones, said that her group had tracked 300 incidents of civilian harm in Iran but that it was difficult to untangle whether the U.S. or Israel was responsible for them. Trump’s own claims on social media about the U.S. being behind some attacks has made it easier for Airwars to pursue accountability, she said.

Tripp said her group refers each incident to Centcom for review. The Defense Department is behind on “every single one of their commitments when it comes to civilian protection,” she said. The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment on this specific allegation.

Bob Ashley, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency during the first Trump administration, is among those calling on the Pentagon to publish the results of the investigation.

“Americans know that over 100 children were killed in this strike. We need to talk to them about what happened, because their trust and confidence in us, as the Department of Defense, and as an intelligence community, matters,” Ashley said in an interview.

In a military career spanning 36 years, Ashley helped train generals, was a former commander and senior intelligence officer at the Joint Special Operations Command and Central Command and currently sits on several advisory boards for companies focused on national security.

“We have an obligation to explain the targeting process, how we apply the criteria of the laws of armed conflict and review targets to be transparent to sustain that level of trust and understanding with the American people,” Ashley said.

He said the intelligence community needs to look at what happened, scrutinize their process and ask itself: “What can we do better? What did we miss?”

Manson writes for Bloomberg.

US drivers may have to wait until 2027 for gasoline prices to fall below 79 cents per litre, according to Patrick De Haan, Head of Petroleum Analysis at GasBuddy. He says global oil inventories could take more than a year to recover from disruptions linked to the war on Iran.

WASHINGTON — Several FBI analysts tied to the creation of a 2023 memo warning of a potential threat from Catholic “violent extremists” were fired Friday, according to their lawyer, the latest wave of terminations under Director Kash Patel.

The fired employees included four intelligence analysts and a supervisory analyst. The FBI declined to comment.

“This action is manifestly unjust, completely unsupported by the facts, and subverts standard FBI policy and procedure,” their lawyer, David Laufman, said in a statement. “These individuals deserved far better for the exceptional and faithful public service they rendered to protect our country.”

The January 2023 intelligence product produced by analysts in the FBI’s Richmond, Va., field office emerged as a political focal point after it was issued, with Republicans in Congress citing it as part of their broader claim that the FBI during the Biden administration was targeting conservatives.

Then-FBI Director Chris Wray denied that allegation and the agency has said the document was quickly retracted and an internal review was launched. Merrick Garland, the attorney general under President Biden, has said he was “appalled” by the memo.

Earlier Justice Department investigations into the memo challenged the analytical tradecraft but did not find intentional misconduct by the analysts involved.

The firings are part of a broader personnel purge under Patel, a President Trump loyalist who over the last year has pushed out dozens of employees who either contributed to investigations of the president or who were perceived as not in alignment with the administration’s agenda. The Justice Department has engaged in similarly sweeping firings of prosecutors since Trump took office last year.

In February, for instance, the FBI fired a group of counterintelligence agents who participated in the investigation into Trump over his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla.

Critics including former federal officials say the purge has transformed federal law enforcement agencies into politically motivated extensions of the Trump White House. The classified documents investigation resulted in a federal indictment against Trump, but the case was dismissed after his 2024 election.

The Richmond memo, which emerged from a domestic terrorism investigation, sought to examine a potential link between what it called “Radical Traditionalist Catholic” ideology and racially and ethnically motivated extremists. It warned of the potential for violence and also highlighted what the authors described as “new avenues for tripwire and source development.” FBI leadership quickly condemned those findings once the document became public.

An internal FBI review described in a 2023 letter to Congress and based on interviews with 26 people “found that all individuals involved in the creation, review and approval of the product failed to adhere to analytic tradecraft standards and failed to recognize that the product, as drafted, equated the subjects’ interest in their self-described form of religion with racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist (RMVE) ideology without sufficient evidence or articulable support.”

The failure to adhere to standards, including on proper domestic terrorism terminology, “created the appearance that the FBI conducts investigative activity based on religious affiliation,” the letter said. “One of the FBI’s most fundamental principles is that investigative activity may not be based solely on the exercise of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

A Justice Department inspector general report in 2024 summarized the earlier FBI review by saying that though there were departures from proper analytic tradecraft, “no evidence of a malicious intent or an improper purpose” were found.

MS NOW earlier reported the firings.

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press and reported from Los Angeles and Washington, respectively.

In January 2024, the publication Axios reported that the United States president at the time, Joe Biden, was “running out of patience” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza had been raging for months by that point, and Biden was facing public backlash over US support for the conflict.

The assault would continue for the rest of Biden’s term and bleed into the first 10 months of Donald Trump‘s second presidency.

Since then, media outlets have continued to publish anonymous accounts of rifts and “frustrating” calls between Trump and the Israeli prime minister. But US support for its Middle East ally has never wavered.

Another anonymously sourced report about a furious, expletive-laden call between US and Israeli leaders came out this week, and it spread rapidly across international media.

Axios reported on Monday that Trump called Netanyahu “f***ing crazy” and berated him over Israel’s escalation in Lebanon.

Around the same time, an Israeli attack killed six people, including two children, in the southern Lebanese town of al-Marwaniyah.

Experts say that despite leaks of feuds and harsh words between US leaders and Netanyahu, policies are ultimately what matters, and they have changed very little.

Ryan Costello, the policy director at the National Iranian American Council Action (NIAC), said political observers have grown to “mock” reports of closed-door anger from US presidents against Netanyahu.

“What’s really important is what actually happens in practice,” Costello told Al Jazeera.

Two administrations, same reports

Though there are reports of Trump giving Netanyahu a dressing-down, Isabelle Hayslip, an advocacy manager at the US-based rights group DAWN, said that US policy remains aligned with Israeli interests.

“Single-source reporting of Trump as a strongman who picks up the phone and yells at Netanyahu for undermining US policy is contradicted by the actual policy outcomes where Netanyahu gets exactly what he wants,” Hayslip told Al Jazeera.

“Trump has no final say over Israeli actions. Like his predecessors, the president has proved completely unable to prioritise American interests, instead catering to Israel’s expansionist whims.”

The latest report comes as Trump faces increasing pressure from his Democratic rivals and segments of his base over his handling of the war on Iran, which he launched jointly with Netanyahu on February 28.

The conflict, which saw Iran close the Strait of Hormuz, has sent gasoline prices soaring in the US and fuelled inflation.

Critics have accused Trump of allowing Israel to drag the US into a war that does not advance Washington’s priorities.

With negotiations to end the war stagnating, Israel’s escalation in Lebanon and its threat to bomb Beirut risks derailing the fragile truce that came into effect in April.

Iranian officials have suggested that they cut off contact with the US over the Israeli attacks in Lebanon.

Before the Axios report, Trump announced he had spoken to Netanyahu and an unidentified Hezbollah representative, and both sides agreed that “all shooting will stop”.

But Netanyahu was quick to assert that the Israeli military “will continue to operate as planned in southern Lebanon”, where it is deepening its invasion and turning entire towns into rubble.

Advocates say Israeli atrocities in Lebanon and across the region could not have happened without US backing.

Since the start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza in October 2023, the US has provided Israel with nearly $25bn in military aid, helped fend off retaliatory Iranian attacks against the country and vetoed several ceasefire resolutions at the United Nations Security Council.

Nonetheless, anonymous accounts that the US president is angry at Netanyahu have become a regular feature in the media.

Such reports are attributed to US officials, but it is unclear how leaks with a similar message on the same topic have continued across two administrations from different political parties.

‘Moderating the anger’

Publicly, aides of both Biden and Trump have largely refrained from criticising Israel.

Trump has regularly praised the Israeli prime minister, arguing on more than one occasion that Israel would have ceased to exist without Netanyahu’s leadership.

In December, the US president also called the Israeli prime minister a “hero” during a meeting in Florida.

“We’re with you, and we’ll continue to be with you,” Trump told Netanyahu.

Two weeks earlier, Axios reported that the White House had “scolded” Netanyahu over Israel’s ceasefire violations in Gaza.

“The White House message to Netanyahu was: ‘If you want to ruin your reputation and show that you don’t abide by agreements, be our guest, but we won’t allow you to ruin President Trump’s reputation after he brokered the deal in Gaza,” the publication quoted a US official as saying.

Few people know the exact content of high-level calls at the White House. Sometimes, top officials, including members of the National Security Council, sit in on conversations between the president and world leaders after briefings.

Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, a research nonprofit, said the leak about the tense call between Trump and Netanyahu may be aimed at making Trump look tough on Israel to quell outrage over the war.

“It could be sort of a way of moderating the anger or the blame at the US for continuing this unpopular, illegal, unnecessary war,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera.

She added that the message it sends is, “Look, we’re very angry at Israel. We yell at them. We call them names.”

But Mortazavi stressed that policy is more important than rhetoric: “Does that change the facts on the ground?”

Information war

For his part, Costello argued that the leak was likely directed at Iran.

“I see this one primarily as a signal to the Iranians that Trump is serious, and he wants to insulate what’s happening in Lebanon and Israel’s attacks from the Iran negotiations,” Costello said.

“It remains to be seen the extent to which that excoriation has actually led to a change in Israel’s policies, and I think there is a strong incentive for continued defiance from Netanyahu.”

Axios, meanwhile, has defended its coverage.

“We stand by our reporting, which by the way noted ‘Trump and Netanyahu have had several tense calls in the past but have still coordinated closely on Iran and other issues,’” Jake Wilkins, a spokesperson for the publication, told Al Jazeera in an email.

Mortazavi warned that all sides of the war on Iran are trying to influence public perceptions of the conflict.

She pointed to recent reports that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian had resigned, a rumour that was promptly denied by his office.

“This is a very hybrid war. It’s a war on the battlefield. It’s an intelligence war. It’s a war of narratives,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera. “And then there’s also an information war, which includes disinformation, half-truths and strategic leaks.”

Cloudflare (NET) cratered 20% during Friday morning market action after issuing its first-quarter results and guidance and announcing a 20% reduction to its workforce.

However, financial firms were mostly upbeat on the report, finding the reduction in workforce, or RIF, will help improve the