An emerging picture of the 2026 war in Iran suggests that the battlefield extends far beyond military bases and weapons facilities, reaching deep into the country’s civilian policing infrastructure. According to findings highlighted by Billingcat, at least 80 police stations and related law enforcement facilities have been damaged or destroyed within the first three weeks of coordinated strikes by the United States and Israel. The pattern points to a deliberate strategy aimed not just at military targets, but at weakening the Iranian state’s ability to govern internally.
The scale of the campaign is striking. Thousands of strikes have reportedly been carried out since the conflict began, targeting a wide spectrum of sites including Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps installations, naval assets, and weapons manufacturing facilities. Yet the inclusion of police stations marks a notable shift. Early analysis identified at least 15 such sites hit in Tehran alone, with additional strikes confirmed across northern and western regions of the country.
The targeting appears far from incidental. Statements from Israeli officials have framed the attacks as part of a broader effort to empower Iranian citizens by undermining state control. One official message declared that conditions were being created for Iranians to “take their destiny into their own hands,” accompanied by imagery of a destroyed police station. Such messaging reinforces the notion that these strikes are intended to erode the government’s domestic authority.
Data compiled by Billingcat shows that police stations and command centers make up the majority of identified targets, accounting for nearly 60 incidents combined. Facilities linked to the Basij paramilitary force, known for its role in suppressing protests, have also been struck, alongside smaller numbers of special forces, traffic, and diplomatic police sites. The Basij, in particular, has been a focal point, with Israeli forces publicly claiming responsibility for killing its commander in mid-March.
Experts suggest that the strategy is rooted in weakening what they describe as Iran’s “repressive capacity.” By degrading institutions that enforce internal order, the campaign aims to disrupt the government’s ability to maintain control. However, analysts caution that the distinction between different branches of law enforcement is significant. While the Basij and specialized units have been directly involved in crackdowns, ordinary police stations often serve administrative and civilian functions, complicating their status as targets.
The methodology behind the investigation highlights the challenges of documenting such a campaign. With access to high-resolution commercial satellite imagery restricted, researchers relied heavily on alternative sources, including Sentinel-2 satellite data, open-source mapping tools, and geolocated videos and photographs. Contributions from independent analysts and volunteer communities helped verify the locations and extent of damage, underscoring the growing role of open-source intelligence in modern conflict reporting.
Despite the breadth of the strikes, questions remain about their effectiveness. Analysts point to the sheer size and complexity of Iran as a limiting factor. Even a sustained campaign against policing infrastructure may struggle to produce immediate results. The country’s vast geography and layered security apparatus mean that dismantling its internal control mechanisms could take months or even years, rather than weeks.
At the same time, the human cost of such a strategy is becoming increasingly apparent. Estimates indicate that more than 1,700 civilians have been killed since the start of the conflict. Many police stations are located in densely populated urban areas, where they serve everyday public needs such as licensing and administrative services. Strikes on these facilities during working hours significantly increase the risk to civilians, including those with no connection to security forces.
Accounts from individuals on the ground illustrate the uncertainty and fear created by the attacks. One activist, previously detained in a Tehran police station that was later destroyed, described seeing images of the site reduced to rubble and wondering about the fate of those who might have been inside at the time. Such testimonies highlight the blurred lines between military objectives and civilian consequences.
Collateral damage has extended beyond police facilities themselves. In one documented case, a strike on a police station in Mahabad caused damage to a neighboring Red Crescent building, injuring at least one employee. Other incidents show attacks on checkpoints occurring as civilians passed nearby, including motorcyclists and public transport vehicles caught in close proximity to explosions.
The use of precision munitions has not eliminated these risks. Analysts note that even relatively small explosives can produce lethal fragmentation over significant distances, particularly in crowded urban environments. Critics argue that the deployment of such weapons in these contexts, while technically precise, may still be reckless in practice.
Legal experts have raised serious concerns about the legitimacy of targeting police infrastructure. Under international humanitarian law, police officers are generally considered civilians unless they directly participate in hostilities. This classification places strict limits on when and how such targets can be attacked. Some analysts argue that the strikes may not meet these legal thresholds, particularly when the anticipated military advantage is limited and the risk to civilians is high.
Military officials involved in the campaign have defended their actions by asserting that Iran’s police forces form part of its broader security apparatus, which they argue qualifies as a legitimate military target. They also emphasize the use of surveillance and precision weapons to minimize civilian harm. However, critics contend that this interpretation could dangerously expand the scope of what is considered a lawful target in modern warfare.
The broader implications of the campaign are still unfolding. If the objective is to render Iran effectively ungovernable, the long-term consequences could extend far beyond the current conflict. Weakening state institutions may create power vacuums, increase instability, and expose civilians to new forms of insecurity.
For now, the destruction of police infrastructure represents a significant and controversial dimension of the war. As investigations continue and more data emerges, the debate over strategy, legality, and human cost is likely to intensify, shaping not only the course of the conflict but also the norms that govern warfare in the years ahead.
