Despite the declaration of a fragile truce in the war between Iran and Israel, the military escalation is heading towards more dangerous scenarios. Analyses often focus on their security dimensions and risks to energy markets, but a very important aspect is left out of the scene: the environmental dimension of the conflict.
The Middle East, one of the most climate-vulnerable and resource-scarce regions in the world, now faces a double threat from the confluence of geopolitical violence and poor environmental integration into security policies.
While decision-makers are preoccupied with missile trajectories and oil prices, potential environmental risks go unnoticed.
This comes despite the fact that the war between Iran and Israel carries radiological, chemical and marine risks that threaten not only the stability of the region, but also the global environmental security system, revealing the fragility of international deterrence and the absence of effective protection mechanisms for nature in times of war.
The risks of war between Iran and Israel
A war between two states with advanced nuclear facilities, extensive energy infrastructures, and sensitive maritime borders, as in the case of the Iran-Israel war, is not a normal military clash, but a comprehensive threat to regional and international environmental security.
In addition to the direct military and security repercussions, there are serious environmental risks related to the nature of the targeted infrastructure, its geographical location, and the readiness of emergency safety systems.
First: Infrastructure is an environmental time bomb
A huge explosion in April 2025 at the Shahid Rajaee port in Bandar Abbas, southern Iran, released toxic gases and polluted the coastline as a result of poor storage of chemicals, as reported by Iran International Network in a field report on April 29, 2025.
The incident, which preceded the military escalation, is an indication of poor environmental risk management in industrial facilities, which increases the fragility of the ecosystem and exacerbates the repercussions of any subsequent confrontation.
The targeting of nuclear facilities in the city of Isfahan and the Natanz site led to warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about the possibility of radiation leakage, especially as cooling and insurance systems were damaged.
In Israel, the missile strike on Soroka Hospital in Beersheba caused the destruction of medical infrastructure and the leakage of chemical and medical substances into the water system, posing a direct threat to public health and the urban ecosystem.
In addition, Iran's water crisis has been greatly exacerbated by the war. Already suffering from chronic drought, the country is unable to provide even minimal water treatment due to power outages and a shortage of essential chemicals.
"The war has deepened Iran's inability to manage its water resources and increased the risk of outbreaks of diseases linked to contaminated water, especially in rural areas," Al-Monitor reported.
II: Maritime Geography Under Threat
The Strait of Hormuz is a strategic choke point that is as important environmentally as it is economically, with about 20 percent of global oil exports passing through it, and is located in an ecologically sensitive region.
Any targeting of ships or oil installations in this strait, whether by missiles or sea mines, threatens catastrophic oil spills.
Bloomberg warned in a report published in April 2025 that continued tensions "put the Strait of Hormuz on the brink of a potential environmental crisis, due to the intensity of shipping traffic and the risk of being targeted."
The risk is not limited to oil spills, but also includes marine fires caused by hitting fuel tankers or offshore fields, directly damaging coral reefs, threatening fish stocks, and undermining the maritime food security of the Gulf states.
In the Eastern Mediterranean, natural gas installations are at similar risk, with repeated threats to Israel's Leviathan offshore field.
The risk is that the undersea pipelines could fail, or leak toxic gases from explosions or technical failures, threatening to contaminate a marine environment already under pressure from economic and tourism activities, and undermining the region's clean energy transition efforts.
Third: The environment outside of international deterrence equations
The Security Council has failed to adopt a mechanism to protect the environment during conflicts, and the Paris Agreement and climate conferences have not led to an international charter that criminalizes environmental damage caused by war or provides for clear monitoring and accountability mechanisms.
The legal vacuum allows nature to go unpunished as "collateral damage" and gives warring parties ample room to ignore their environmental obligations in times of crisis. As nuclear and energy facilities continue to be targeted, and water and health facilities are disrupted, the likelihood that ecosystems in conflict zones will collapse irreparably, even after the end of the war, increases.
Incorporating environmental protection standards into the laws of war is no longer a regulatory luxury or a humanitarian appeal, but a strategic necessity to protect the right to life itself. While cities can be rebuilt after settlements, devastated ecosystems may never regain their equilibrium.
Dr. Manal Sekhri is an expert and researcher in environmental policy.
comments