UNESCO has formally called on all parties involved in military operations to respect and protect Iranian cultural heritage sites, invoking the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. This statement gained particular urgency after former President Donald Trump suggested in January 2020 that the United States might target Iranian cultural sites in retaliation for escalating tensions, a threat that drew immediate international condemnation and raised serious questions about compliance with international law. UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay issued a direct reminder that both the United States and Iran had ratified the convention, making any deliberate targeting of heritage sites a potential war crime under international humanitarian law.
Iran is home to 27 UNESCO World Heritage Sites, including Persepolis, the ancient capital of the Achaemenid Empire, the historic bazaar of Tabriz, and the Meidan Emam complex in Isfahan. These sites represent thousands of years of human civilization and hold significance far beyond any single nation’s borders. This article examines the legal frameworks that protect cultural heritage during armed conflict, the specific threats to Iranian sites, the Trump administration’s backtracking on its initial statements, the broader implications for U.S. military policy, and what accountability mechanisms exist when cultural property is endangered by state actors.
Table of Contents
- What Legal Protections Exist for Iranian Heritage Sites During Armed Conflict?
- How the Trump Administration’s Threats Against Iranian Cultural Sites Unfolded
- Why Iran’s Heritage Sites Hold Global Significance Beyond National Borders
- What Accountability Mechanisms Exist When Cultural Heritage Is Threatened by Military Action?
- The Broader Risk of Normalizing Threats Against Cultural Property
- How U.S. Military Doctrine Already Addresses Cultural Property Protection
- What Comes Next for Heritage Protection in an Era of Great Power Tensions
- Conclusion
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Legal Protections Exist for Iranian Heritage Sites During Armed Conflict?
The primary legal framework governing the protection of cultural property during warfare is the 1954 Hague Convention, which the United States ratified in 2009. The convention explicitly prohibits targeting cultural property — defined as monuments, archaeological sites, works of art, manuscripts, books, and collections of scientific significance — during military operations. A second protocol adopted in 1999 strengthened these protections by establishing individual criminal responsibility for serious violations, though the United States has not ratified that second protocol. iran ratified the original convention in 1959. Beyond the Hague Convention, additional protections come from the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law. Article 53 of Additional Protocol I prohibits acts of hostility directed against historic monuments, works of art, or places of worship that constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court also classifies intentional attacks on buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science, or charitable purposes as war crimes.
In practical terms, this means that a U.S. military commander who ordered strikes on Persepolis or the Golestan Palace could theoretically face prosecution under multiple legal frameworks. However, these protections are not absolute. The Hague Convention includes a controversial “military necessity” exception, which allows targeting of cultural property if it has been converted to military use. For example, if a belligerent force used an ancient fortress as an active military command center, an opposing force could argue that striking it was legally justified. This exception has been widely criticized because it creates a loophole that powerful militaries can exploit. The destruction of cultural sites in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen in recent years demonstrated how easily this exception can be stretched beyond its intended scope.
How the Trump Administration’s Threats Against Iranian Cultural Sites Unfolded
The crisis began on January 3, 2020, when a U.S. drone strike killed Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani near Baghdad International Airport. In the days that followed, as Iran vowed retaliation, President Trump posted on social media that the United States had identified 52 Iranian targets, “some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture.” He doubled down in remarks to reporters aboard Air Force One, saying explicitly: “They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way.” The statements provoked a sharp and immediate backlash. Legal scholars, military veterans, and diplomats across the political spectrum condemned the remarks. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden called the threat a war crime.
Democratic and Republican members of Congress expressed alarm. Within the Pentagon, senior military officials reportedly pushed back. Defense Secretary Mark Esper stated publicly that the United States would “follow the laws of armed conflict,” which he acknowledged prohibit targeting cultural sites. This represented a notable departure from the president’s stated position and signaled that the military establishment was unwilling to carry out such orders. By January 6, 2020, Trump appeared to reverse course, telling reporters he “likes to obey the law” while still expressing frustration with the legal constraints. This episode matters beyond the immediate crisis because it revealed a tension that persists in U.S. policy discussions: the gap between political rhetoric and what the military is legally and institutionally prepared to execute. It also raised questions about whether threatening cultural destruction — even if never carried out — violates the spirit of international humanitarian law and damages America’s standing as a proponent of cultural preservation.
Why Iran’s Heritage Sites Hold Global Significance Beyond National Borders
Iran’s cultural heritage spans roughly 7,000 years and encompasses contributions to architecture, mathematics, literature, medicine, and philosophy that shaped civilizations across Central Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Persepolis, the ceremonial capital built by Darius I around 518 BCE, contains carved reliefs depicting delegations from 23 nations of the ancient Achaemenid Empire — making it not just an Iranian treasure but a record of early international diplomacy. Its destruction would erase physical evidence of one of the earliest known multi-ethnic governing systems. The historic city of Isfahan, with its Meidan Emam square dating to the early 17th century, represents the zenith of Safavid architecture and urban planning. The Imam Mosque, Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque, and Ali Qapu Palace surrounding the square demonstrate engineering and artistic techniques that influenced building traditions from Istanbul to Delhi.
The Armenian quarter of Jolfa within Isfahan also houses the Vank Cathedral, a critical monument for understanding the history of Christianity in the Middle East and the Armenian diaspora. The destruction of comparable heritage sites elsewhere should serve as a stark warning. When ISIS dynamited the Temple of Bel in Palmyra, Syria, in 2015, the loss was mourned globally as irreplaceable. When the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001, it galvanized international efforts to strengthen heritage protection laws. Iran’s sites are of comparable or greater historical significance, and any damage to them during military operations would constitute a cultural catastrophe felt far beyond Iran’s borders. Archaeologists and historians have repeatedly emphasized that these sites belong to all of humanity, not just to the government that currently controls the territory where they stand.
What Accountability Mechanisms Exist When Cultural Heritage Is Threatened by Military Action?
International law provides several avenues for accountability, though each comes with significant practical limitations. The International Criminal Court can prosecute individuals for intentionally directing attacks against cultural property, as it did in the landmark 2016 case against Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi for destroying mausoleums in Timbuktu, Mali. Al-Mahdi was sentenced to nine years in prison — the first ICC conviction focused specifically on cultural destruction. However, the United States is not a member of the ICC and does not recognize its jurisdiction over American nationals, which severely limits this avenue for accountability regarding U.S. military actions. Domestic law offers another path. The U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice and Department of Defense directives incorporate the laws of armed conflict, including protections for cultural property. A U.S.
service member who carried out an unlawful order to destroy a cultural site could face court-martial. Military lawyers — Judge Advocate General officers — review targeting decisions precisely to prevent such violations. During the 2020 crisis, reports indicated that JAG officers were among those raising concerns within the Pentagon about the president’s statements. The tradeoff in all of these mechanisms is enforcement. International institutions depend on state cooperation, which is often withheld by the most powerful nations. Domestic accountability requires political will within the offending government’s own system. The al-Mahdi case worked because the defendant was a non-state actor captured and transferred to The Hague. Holding a sitting head of state or senior military commander accountable for cultural destruction remains largely theoretical. This is not a reason to dismiss the legal frameworks — they establish norms that shape behavior even when enforcement is imperfect — but it is a reason to be realistic about their limits.
The Broader Risk of Normalizing Threats Against Cultural Property
One of the most dangerous consequences of the 2020 episode was the normalization of rhetoric that treats cultural sites as legitimate military leverage. Even though the strikes never materialized, the public threat itself caused damage. It signaled to other governments and non-state actors that the world’s most powerful military was willing to consider cultural destruction as a tool of coercion. This undermines decades of international norm-building and gives cover to regimes that have fewer constraints on their own behavior. The precedent matters in ongoing and future conflicts. If the United States — a nation that has invested heavily in cultural preservation programs, including funding UNESCO operations and training foreign militaries on heritage protection — is seen as willing to target cultural sites, it weakens America’s ability to condemn such actions by others.
Russia’s shelling of cultural sites in Ukraine, including the historic Odessa city center and the Mariupol Drama Theatre, has been widely condemned by Western governments. That condemnation carries less moral authority when American leaders have publicly entertained similar actions. There is also a practical military concern. Destroying cultural sites in an adversary nation almost always strengthens domestic resistance rather than weakening it. The bombing of cultural landmarks tends to unify populations against the attacker and can transform a military conflict into a civilizational grievance that persists for generations. Military strategists within the Pentagon have long understood this, which is one reason the institutional resistance to Trump’s 2020 remarks was so immediate and forceful.
How U.S. Military Doctrine Already Addresses Cultural Property Protection
The U.S. military maintains a “no-strike list” that includes known cultural sites, hospitals, religious buildings, and other protected locations. This list is integrated into targeting software and operational planning processes. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, the military worked with archaeologists and cultural heritage experts to identify sites that should be avoided during bombing campaigns — though the subsequent looting of the Iraq Museum in Baghdad revealed that protection during combat and protection during occupation are very different challenges.
The Department of Defense also operates cultural heritage training programs and has deployed Monuments Officers — a role that traces back to the famous “Monuments Men” of World War II — to conflict zones. The 2017 Protect and Preserve International Cultural Property Act, signed into law with bipartisan support, further codified the U.S. commitment to safeguarding cultural heritage during military operations. These institutional safeguards exist precisely to prevent the kind of impulsive targeting that was briefly threatened in January 2020.
What Comes Next for Heritage Protection in an Era of Great Power Tensions
The 2020 Iran crisis highlighted a vulnerability in the international heritage protection regime: it works best during periods of relative stability and consensus, and it comes under strain precisely when it is needed most — during escalations between major powers. As tensions persist between the United States and Iran over nuclear negotiations, regional proxy conflicts, and sanctions enforcement, the risk to Iranian cultural sites has not disappeared. It has merely moved from the front pages.
Looking ahead, the most productive path involves strengthening the institutional checks that worked in 2020 — military legal review, Congressional oversight, and international pressure — while also investing in digital documentation of at-risk sites. Organizations like CyArk and the Smithsonian Institution have been creating detailed 3D scans of heritage sites worldwide, ensuring that even if physical destruction occurs, a record survives. This is not a substitute for physical protection, but it is a realistic hedge against the worst-case scenarios that the 2020 crisis forced the world to contemplate.
Conclusion
UNESCO’s call to protect Iranian heritage sites during combat operations was more than a diplomatic statement — it was a necessary reminder that international law draws firm boundaries around the conduct of war, and that cultural property occupies a protected category regardless of the political conflicts between governments. The Trump administration’s brief flirtation with targeting Iranian cultural sites in January 2020 tested those boundaries and found them holding, largely because of institutional resistance within the U.S. military and immediate international condemnation.
The episode should serve as a warning rather than a precedent. Iran’s 27 World Heritage Sites and thousands of additional monuments represent irreplaceable records of human civilization. Protecting them is not a concession to an adversary — it is an obligation under international law and a reflection of the values that the United States claims to uphold. Citizens, lawmakers, and military professionals all have roles to play in ensuring that political rhetoric does not override legal and moral commitments to cultural preservation during armed conflict.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did President Trump actually order strikes on Iranian cultural sites?
No. Trump made public statements suggesting cultural sites could be targeted, but no strikes were carried out. Defense Secretary Esper publicly confirmed the military would follow the laws of armed conflict, which prohibit targeting cultural sites.
Is it ever legal to strike a cultural heritage site during war?
Under the 1954 Hague Convention, cultural property may only be targeted if it has been converted to direct military use and there is no feasible alternative. This “military necessity” exception is narrow and has been criticized for its potential for abuse.
How many UNESCO World Heritage Sites does Iran have?
As of 2025, Iran has 27 UNESCO World Heritage Sites, including Persepolis, the Golestan Palace, Meidan Emam in Isfahan, and the historic hydraulic system of Shushtar.
Could a U.S. president be held legally accountable for ordering the destruction of cultural sites?
In theory, yes — under both international humanitarian law and domestic military law. In practice, enforcement against sitting heads of state is extremely difficult, particularly for nations that do not recognize ICC jurisdiction.
What happened to the person convicted of destroying cultural heritage at the ICC?
Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi was sentenced in 2016 to nine years in prison for directing the destruction of historic mausoleums in Timbuktu, Mali. It was the ICC’s first conviction focused specifically on cultural property destruction.