Historian Touraj Daryaee argues that the destruction of Iran’s cultural heritage is not mere collateral damage, but part of a broader strategy to weaken Iran at its foundations.
In the ongoing war of the United States and Israel against Iran, multiple official and media reports indicate serious damage to Iran’s cultural heritage. According to Iran’s Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Tourism, and Handicrafts, by March 29, 2026, at least 131 historical buildings and 64 tourism facilities in 18 provinces had been damaged or completely destroyed. In the first days of the new year, the figure for historical sites rose to 132, and it is expected that with the continuation of the conflict and the completion of field assessments, the number of damaged heritage sites will increase. Tehran Province, with more than 50 to 60 damaged sites, stands at the top of the list, followed by Isfahan and Kurdistan.
Among the most significant damaged sites is Tehran’s Golestan Palace, a UNESCO-listed site, where mirrorwork, windows, and wooden sash frames were shattered and decorations damaged by shrapnel and the blast wave from an attack on Arg Square. In Isfahan, Chehel Sotoun Palace, Ali Qapu, the Shah Mosque, and parts of Naqsh-e Jahan Square have mainly suffered blast damage to paintings, tilework, and structural elements. Tehran’s Saadabad complex also suffered serious damage in the attacks of March 17, 2026, including harm to plasterwork, mirrorwork, and stonework from the Qajar and Pahlavi periods. Falak-ol-Aflak Castle in Khorramabad; the Asif, Salar Saeed, and Khosroabad mansions in Sanandaj; the historic core of central Tehran; Marmar Palace; the former Senate building; and dozens of other buildings in provinces such as Kermanshah, Bushehr, Ilam, and Khuzestan are also among the sites destroyed or damaged.
Most of the destruction has been attributed to blast waves, shrapnel, and falling debris, and although many museum objects had been moved to safe locations before the attacks, the structural damage to the buildings has been described as irreparable.
In response, UNESCO has expressed grave concern, sent the coordinates of Iran’s World Heritage sites, 29 registered properties, to the warring parties, and called for their protection. The organization has confirmed that at least four historical sites, including Golestan, Chehel Sotoun, the Shah Mosque, and the Khorramabad area, have been damaged. Iran has described these acts as a “crime against civilizational identity” and a clear violation of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and has called for international legal action. Cultural heritage activists and civil associations, through public gatherings, have also described these attacks as an “assault on the historical memory of humanity.” We spoke with Dr. Touraj Daryaee, a historian and scholar.
Israel’s Double Standard
Israel considers its own cultural heritage, especially sites related to Jewish history, to be of strategic and identity-forming importance. It has invested heavily in the protection, excavation, and display of these sites, and treats them as tools for legitimizing and perpetuating its national identity. Yet when it comes to the cultural heritage of others, especially in Palestinian and Islamic areas affected by war, Israel’s conduct does not match its claims. Independent international reports indicate widespread destruction that goes beyond mere “collateral damage,” although the Israel Defense Forces reject these accusations and attribute the damage to military necessity. While the 1954 Hague Convention and the Geneva Protocols prohibit direct attacks on cultural heritage except in very limited cases of military necessity, many international organizations believe that Israel has violated these rules in numerous cases. As a result, Israel’s concern for cultural heritage appears selective and contradictory: very strong and sensitive when it comes to its own Jewish-Israeli identity, but weak and dismissive when it conflicts with military security or political aims. This contradiction is deeply controversial.
In response to a question about this contradiction in Israel’s conduct, Daryaee explained that he cannot easily justify why Israel shows no concern for Iran’s cultural heritage, but he believes the issue goes beyond indifference to buildings, since human lives are also at stake. According to him, Israel’s goal is to create “a completely weak Iran, or what in English is called a failed state, meaning a wounded country that can never raise its head again, and that can be bombed every so often the way Lebanon is.”
He emphasized:
You can see this policy in Gaza, where neither people’s lives, nor [residential] buildings, nor even historical monuments have mattered to Israel.
He added that this method can be seen in Israel’s actions across the Middle East, even though the Israeli government never declares such a thing openly. Daryaee specified that he does not mean the people of Israel, but rather “the right-wing government, nationalist hawks, or Likud” who hold such a view.
Ways of Protection and the Role of the International Community
In response to the question of how historical monuments can be protected against a party that ignores the obligations of the Hague Convention, Daryaee said that the role of he and his colleagues as historians and researchers is to raise their voices and let the world hear that these buildings are being damaged.
He acknowledged that in wartime it is the powers that decide, and that in the Middle East the experience has been that “first the Americans and the Israelis come and completely bomb countries, and then they feel sorry and allocate money for reconstruction.”
What disappoints me is our own Iranians, our compatriots, who because of political and ideological rigidity are not even willing to admit that their cultural heritage is being destroyed in this war.
He said that he has pointed this out several times in articles, but every time he has been accused of lying and exaggeration, and for him this is “far more devastating than the airstrikes.”
Historical Comparison with ISIS in Iraq and the War in Ukraine
Daryaee believes that in terms of the agent of destruction, what is happening in Iran is closer to the war in Ukraine than to the actions of ISIS, because in both Iran and Ukraine it is a regular state army carrying out the attacks, not a transnational terrorist group like ISIS. Yet his main concern goes beyond the current attacks. He stresses that the greatest danger to Iran’s cultural heritage is the scenario of the collapse of the central state. In his view, if Iran turns into a country without an effective central government, similar to what happened in Iraq and Syria, then the destruction of cultural heritage by any armed group will become possible.
He recalls the experience of Iraq, where more than a thousand archaeological areas were destroyed and museums and historical buildings no longer possess their former identity. According to Daryaee, “what was done to Iraq and Syria” bears the greatest resemblance to what is now happening to Iran. His final comparison, then, combines both models: in the short term, it is like Ukraine, destruction carried out by a state army; in the long term, it carries the danger of collapse in the manner of Iraq and Syria.
