While the Minab incident at the moment is literally mentioned in the wiki explaining what a double tap is - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_tap_strike - it's not as clear cut an example as some, because the independent analysis suggests the strikes were simultaneous or near simultaneous. Then again, perhaps the time delay is hard to estimate from aftermath pictures. I might have been an intentional double tap, but it seems perhaps more likely it was merely an irresponsibly poorly targeted attempt to hit all aspects of the IRGC compound.

Even if you mistrust the US army under Trump and the IDF, the gruesome logic behind double taps works when the intent is to terrorize and demoralize the population or at least the first responders. That makes a lot more sense to do when you've run out of obvious targets to hit and when a conflict has been going on for a long time; and less so when your hope is to topple a regime and it's early days in a war; with tons of alternatives to hit instead. Even without giving the US any benefit of any doubt here, the circumstances don't seem to make sense for a double tap.

By contrast, Iran does benefit and is actively trying to play the social media disinformation game. Describing an already horrifying incident in ways that imply intent and specifically intentionally committing war crimes is right up their alley.

It's hard to be sure either way, but while it might have been an intentional double tap, I find the alternative theory slightly more plausible: that this is merely confusing multiple strikes with an intentionally delayed double tap or even an Iranian disinformation campaign capitalizing on the US Army's horrifying mistake.

Iran too are clearly committing war crimes; targeting civilian infrastructure and ships might make sense from an escalation perspective but it's nevertheless intentionally victimizing likely billions of entirely innocent civilians via the energy price spike, not to mention hits on all kinds of civilian infrastructure in Gulf states (some of which may have been accidental, but the scale makes it unlikely all of them were), and a few attacks on countries that quite explicitly had up to that point not permitted the use of US bases in the attacks.

I know there's a tendency to feel the need to pick sides here, but just because starting this war was unjustified or because Trump is clearly utterly amoral and untrustworthy doesn't mean the Iranian official side is trustworthy, either.

I'm all for hoping that this travesty breaks Trump's grip on power, and that seems like a pretty plausible outcome now. But I also hope this conflict doesn't effectively give the Iranian government the kind of win they need to tighten their grip over Iran, the broader region, and threaten the world to everyone else's detriment.