Recent wars have damaged historic monuments, museums and intangible heritage across Iran, exposing both wartime destruction and the limits of international legal protections.
Over roughly the past half-century, Iran has experienced three wars: the eight-year Iran–Iraq War, the 12-day war, and the 39-day war. In the case of the most recent war, the concentrated attacks on southern Iran in the days following the ceasefire and the signing of the interim memorandum must also be taken into account.
War takes lives. It destroys homes and communities, ravages nature, water resources, pastures, forests and wildlife—and, as though still not sated, turns on cultural heritage as well. Various conventions have been drawn up in international forums to protect natural and cultural heritage during wartime, but in practice they are not always effective, particularly when one party to a war recklessly disregards the very rules its own country has accepted and threatens to destroy an entire civilisation.
During the recent war, the US president publicly threatened Iran with the destruction of its civilisation on at least two occasions, speaking from the podium before the eyes of the world. It might be tempting to dismiss these remarks as empty threats that were never acted upon. To assess whether that assumption holds, we first examine the damage inflicted on historic buildings and museums, and then the harm the war has caused to Iran’s intangible cultural heritage. Only then can we ask whether Trump’s threat was hollow rhetoric—or something that should be taken far more seriously.
Damage to Historic Buildings and Museums
According to figures released by Iran’s Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Tourism and Handicrafts, at least 149 historic sites and museums across 20 provinces have been damaged. Tehran Province suffered the greatest destruction, with 70 sites affected, followed by Isfahan with 27, Khuzestan with 12, Kermanshah with five, Lorestan with four, Qom with three and East Azerbaijan with two. Damage was also reported in other provinces.
Of these, 33 sites were damaged by direct strikes on the sites themselves, 42 by strikes within the buffer zones surrounding historic sites, and 74 by blast waves, which in some cases caused significant destruction. The bombardments damaged six UNESCO World Heritage properties—Golestan Palace, Naqsh-e Jahan Square, the Jameh Mosque of Isfahan, the Khorramabad Valley, the Trans-Iranian Railway, and the historic Chehel Sotoun complex, whose garden forms part of the nine Persian Gardens inscribed on the World Heritage List—as well as seven historic urban fabrics and 54 museums.
“The first attack on the capital targeted the government complex, close to which stands one of the city’s most significant historic buildings. The Marble Palace, which in recent years has operated as an art museum under the Foundation of the Oppressed, is located within the government complex.”
The attack caused serious damage to Tehran’s Golestan Palace complex, the seat of government under the Qajar dynasty, with the Marble Throne, one of the complex’s most magnificent features, sustaining extensive damage. Eskandar Mokhtari, a specialist and researcher in architectural heritage, described the scale of the damage to the Golestan World Heritage complex in an interview with ISNA:
“The greatest damage within the Golestan complex was inflicted on Abyaz Palace, which stands next to the judiciary building. All of its windows were damaged, and the roof was punctured in several places. Around 70 percent of the elaborate orsi windows around the Marble Throne have collapsed. Parts of the mirrored ceiling within the framed sections were damaged, although the structure itself did not suffer serious harm. It appears that the curtains installed in front of the Marble Veranda absorbed some of the force of the blast.”
Speaking about Shams ol-Emareh, he added:
“At Shams ol-Emareh, the roof of the veranda was damaged, and the framed mirrorwork in the ground-floor hall was affected. Almost all sections containing flat framed mirrorwork have become unstable: some have already collapsed, while others remain at risk of falling.”
In Isfahan, “Chehel Sotoun Palace may have sustained the most extensive damage. The blast wave from a bomb striking near the building dislodged sections of the mirrorwork on the veranda. Parts of the painted and gilded wooden ceiling of the Chehel Sotoun hall collapsed. The wooden lattice windows and glass panes of the main hall were also shattered, leaving fragments scattered across the floor. Published images of the palace’s magnificent wall paintings, depicting Safavid kings receiving foreign ambassadors in the mid-seventeenth century, show deep cracks and fissures. The damage to Ali Qapu Palace has yet to be fully recorded and documented.” (Institute for Iran and Eurasia Studies, 27 June 2026)
Vibrations caused by missile strikes—or, as they are increasingly described these days, “projectiles”—also dislodged a number of tiles from the Imam Mosque in historic Naqsh-e Jahan Square, known as the Shah Mosque during the Qajar and Pahlavi periods and as the Abbasi Congregational Mosque during the Safavid era.
In Lorestan Province, the protected surroundings of the historic Falak-ol-Aflak Castle were also damaged in an attack. According to the provincial cultural heritage authorities, “during the attack on the site and protected surroundings of the historic Falak-ol-Aflak Castle in Khorramabad, a number of buildings and spaces within the historic complex, including the archaeological museum and ethnographic museum housed inside the castle, suffered serious damage. Buildings including the barracks, officers’ club, regimental headquarters and several surrounding historic spaces were also damaged by direct impact and blast waves.”
The physical destruction of buildings is one side of the issue; the other is damage to intangible cultural heritage. At Golestan Palace, for example, mirrorwork, paintings on glass and walls, stone carving, geometric latticework and orsi windows were also damaged. The art of mirrorwork has been inscribed on the global list of intangible cultural heritage, and the mirrorwork at Golestan Palace is 120 years old. The art itself has not disappeared, but even if the building is restored, the historical age and authenticity of these works cannot be recreated.
Another example is the destruction of traditional wooden lenj boats in southern Iran as a result of repeated bombardments from February–March 2026 until after the memorandum was signed. These boats are symbols of Hormozgan’s historical and cultural identity and form part of Iran’s maritime heritage. In 2011, UNESCO inscribed the “Traditional Skills of Building and Sailing Iranian Lenj Boats in the Persian Gulf” on its intangible cultural heritage list, emphasising the need to safeguard and protect this heritage. UNESCO had previously identified changes in traditional sailing practices as one of the principal threats to this longstanding tradition.
According to Hormozgan Province’s director-general for economic affairs, around 30 traditional wooden lenj boats have been destroyed. Beyond their status as part of the region’s historical heritage, these vessels also play a role in developing tourism in southern Iran—an industry that has itself been severely damaged by the war. Traditional houses in Qeshm now stand empty of tourists, signalling the return of poverty to a region that in recent years had only just begun to see some measure of development and prosperity.
International Law and the Protection of Cultural Heritage in War
Article 53 of Additional Protocol I and Article 16 of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions prohibit “any acts of hostility directed against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples.”
The 1954 Hague Convention was the first international treaty specifically dedicated to the protection of cultural heritage—including buildings, archaeological sites, museums and other cultural property—during war and armed conflict. Under the Convention, states are required to identify cultural property within their territory and plan for its protection during wartime. Subject to certain obligations, including refraining from military use of protected buildings and their surrounding areas, states must also contribute to the effective protection of such sites during war, whether in an internal conflict or an attack by another country.
The Convention specifically uses the term “cultural property” to give the concept a clear legal meaning. In later decades, as further conventions came into wider use, the term “cultural heritage” also became more prevalent and its protection increasingly entered the international agenda. One of the best-known symbols used to protect such heritage in wartime is the “Blue Shield,” which identifies cultural property under protection.
In the two most recent wars, Iran, the United States and Israel have all had obligations under various frameworks of international humanitarian law. Yet the damage inflicted on Iran’s historic buildings has once again raised questions about the effectiveness of these legal mechanisms.
It may appear that these rules lack effective enforcement mechanisms and amount only to moral and legal commitments endorsed by states parties. Yet the history of other wars demonstrates that, in some instances, the destruction of cultural heritage can be prosecuted.
Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, intentionally directing attacks against certain cultural and religious buildings can, under specified circumstances, constitute a war crime. Although relatively few cases have focused on this issue, there is precedent for prosecution. One of the best-known examples concerned the destruction of cultural sites in Mali, which resulted in the conviction of one of those responsible before the International Criminal Court.
The destruction of the Mostar Bridge in Bosnia during the 1990s was also the subject of judicial proceedings. In subsequent litigation, the military use of the bridge and the legality of targeting it became matters of legal dispute.
During the war, Israel and the United States repeatedly cited the military use of targeted areas or infrastructure as justification for their attacks. In the case of Iran’s museums and historic buildings, however, it is necessary to examine specifically whether there was evidence that these sites themselves were being used for military purposes.
During the attack on the site and protected surroundings of Falak-ol-Aflak Castle in Khorramabad, the archaeological and ethnographic museums housed inside the castle suffered serious damage. The barracks, officers’ club, regimental headquarters and a number of historic spaces in the surrounding area were also damaged by direct impact and blast waves.
The historic site stands next to a military zone. According to the governor of Lorestan, the protected surroundings of the castle were supposed to be cleared in January–February 2026 following the relocation of the military barracks. This has raised concerns among cultural heritage advocates because, despite the growing risk of war—particularly following the activation of the snapback mechanism and the 12-day war—the military zone had still not been moved away from the castle’s protected surroundings.
Although historic sites elsewhere were damaged by bombardment even when they were not located next to military bases, remarks by the director-general responsible for registering protected zones and preserving and restoring intangible and natural heritage indicate that the relocation of military installations away from historic areas has proceeded slowly:
“The removal of military and law-enforcement bases from the vicinity of historic buildings has been on the agenda for years.”
It should also be kept in mind that international humanitarian law has not been applied consistently across different conflicts. During Israeli attacks on Lebanon, for example, 39 of the country’s cultural properties were granted “enhanced protection,” while the response of international institutions to damage inflicted on Iran’s cultural heritage was more limited. This disparity in responses raises questions about the influence of political considerations on the conduct of international institutions.
The Role of the Blue Shield in Protecting Cultural Heritage
Blue Shield International is a non-governmental organisation active in protecting historic sites, museums, libraries, archaeological sites and archives during crises, natural disasters, wars and armed conflicts.
Following the ceasefire in the 12-day war, cultural heritage experts warned that Iran lacked effective policies for protecting historic monuments during armed conflict. They stated:
“In recent years, efforts have been made to establish a national Blue Shield committee in Iran. Initial steps began during the 2010s, and in 2019–20 an official meeting was held with the participation of officials, including Dr Talebian, then deputy minister for cultural heritage, and a UNESCO representative. Minutes were signed, but unfortunately the necessary follow-up did not continue. One of the major obstacles was legal issues, because under Blue Shield’s international structure, even private individuals and non-governmental organisations can take steps to establish a national committee in their countries.” (ISNA, “The Need to Safeguard Historic Sites During Armed Conflict,” 17 July 2025)
Exactly where the legal obstacle lies has not been made clear, particularly since private individuals are also permitted to take action in this area and the creation of such a body is not necessarily restricted to the state. Nevertheless, it appears that resolving the problem would be impossible without cooperation among different institutions and the armed forces.
Statements by the director-general responsible for registering protected zones and preserving and restoring intangible and natural heritage indicate that protective symbols have been installed at historic sites. According to him, “provincial cultural heritage departments have installed white flags bearing the blue emblem—the Blue Shield—at all historic buildings. Yet despite this, unfortunately, we saw what happened. Even in images of the Baba Taher Mausoleum, you can see that although the flag had been installed, an attack still took place and the mausoleum structure was damaged.”
He also said: “Following the incident at Golestan Palace, all World Heritage sites in Iran were instructed to ensure that the Blue Shield was displayed at all 114 historic properties included within the country’s 29 World Heritage listings.”
The issue is not simply the violation of international law or shortcomings in the management of historic-site protection. The point is that during the recent war, the US government officially and publicly threatened Iran with the destruction of its civilisation several times.
Iran, the United States and Israel are all parties to the 1954 Hague Convention. The United States has not ratified the 1999 Second Protocol. The protocol was designed to strengthen the protection of cultural property during armed conflict and introduced the mechanism of “enhanced protection” as well as more detailed provisions concerning criminal responsibility.
In response to the destruction of Iran’s historic and cultural sites, UNESCO expressed “deep concern” but stopped short of explicitly condemning the attacks. Critics of such responses regard this as evidence of the limitations international institutions face when confronting major military powers. In other wars, including those in Iraq, Syria and Libya, the capacity of international institutions to prevent the destruction of cultural heritage has likewise been a matter of debate.
Ultimately, the protection of cultural heritage depends not only on legal mechanisms but on the conduct of the parties to war themselves. In the latest conflict, public threats to destroy Iran’s civilisation, combined with actual damage to historic sites, have given that question a far greater urgency.
