In the fog of the U.S.-Israel-Iran war, even whispers of “nuclear leak” sent a collective chill down the region’s spine. The threat transcended geographies and could trigger a humanitarian catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) warned that strikes near Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant could trigger “a major radiological accident” with wide-reaching consequences. Messaging apps circulated unsolicited “dos” and “don’ts” in the aftermath of the disaster.
This was a rare sobering factor in a war defined by brutal attacks, counterattacks, and incendiary threats. Despite the desperation, no collective regional mechanism emerged to prevent the unthinkable or to reach a semblance of agreement on staying out of the red zone. Organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) expressed concern and noted that authorities have been “activating emergency plans, strengthening monitoring for environmental and radiological risks.” Yet the contingency rested at the national level, with a regional plan nowhere in sight.
A French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs (IRIS) study quantified the environmental impact of the Iran war by measuring atmospheric carbon emissions from combat. Using satellite data, it mapped toxic damage to ecosystems and assessed pollution from damaged industrial infrastructure. Reports suggest that, as of mid-2026, over 5 million tons of CO2 emissions were released in the first two weeks of warfare. In early May, a large oil slick was reportedly spreading in the Gulf, off Kharg Island. Over 3,000 barrels of oil are estimated to have been released across over 20 square miles.
Collateral Damage
As the war ravaged the region, reports poured in about “black rain” over Iran, “smoke over Fujairah,” “destroyed houses” in Lebanon, and “spills and leaks” in the sea. Threats to water desalination plants, energy infrastructure, and sea disruption caused by mines kept people awake, as reported. The region’s biological sanctuaries braced for oil spills, underwater noise pollution, and injury to marine life. In other words, the conflict increased climate and public health risks across the Middle East as strikes spread from military targets to industrial, energy, and urban infrastructure.
Damage to factories, transport hubs, oil facilities, and residential areas released toxic pollutants into the air, soil, and water. Fires, asbestos exposure, heavy metals, and explosive residues compounded long-term contamination risks. UK-based Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) said the war’s environmental footprint is closely tied to its duration and intensity, with several escalatory trends of concern. “While attention is focused on the damage, it is vital that the future resources, technical capacities, and political conditions for environmental assessment and remediation in the affected countries are considered,” it added.
Polluted Air, Soil, and Water
Addressing the 173rd meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives in Nairobi, Inger Andersen, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), said the destruction of infrastructure – including fuel storage, refining and processing facilities – across the Middle East has polluted the air, soil and water. “Fires from damaged oil and gas facilities release heat and air pollutants – creating serious risks to those responding to the fires and to people living in affected areas,” she said.
Andersen also lamented oil spills that contaminate rivers, lakes, reservoirs, groundwater, and marine waters, posing serious health risks, impacting wildlife, and exacerbating the region’s water scarcity. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) stressed that the conflict is leading to “growing pollution, with mounting effects on human health, ecosystems, soils and aquifers” now and in the long term. Notably, the Gulf’s shallow waters and arid macro climate create a distinct pollution dynamic that promotes the long-term persistence of contaminants.
Ecologically Challenging Marine Environment
These conditions make the region one of the most ecologically challenging marine environments on earth. “Large-scale pollution incidents are likely to be transboundary and carry the potential for catastrophic impacts – threatening marine ecosystems, species, and coastlines alike – while leaving a polluted legacy that could endure for decades,” IUCN said. It also highlighted the urgent need for “an integrated approach” that considers nature protection as a cornerstone of peace and sustainable development.
While all this came under the broad “collateral damage” category, what was missing was a method in madness, i.e., an overarching arrangement under which all parties agree to safeguard the vulnerable and regulate critical environmental hazards even while pursuing military and political objectives. From the dangers of a possible nuclear leak to rising carbon emissions, health risks, and marine pollution, an uncontrolled conflict could trigger a climate disaster the world cannot afford.
Conventions and Treaties
Given the regional faultlines and history of conflict, it is not surprising that the Middle East lacks a comprehensive treaty prohibiting the development, acquisition, or testing of nuclear weapons, unlike other areas of the world. Most countries have signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), while some critical ones have not. Even though a web of international conventions exists governing nuclear accidents, transboundary contamination, liability, emergency response, and wartime environmental harm, there is no single all-encompassing “nuclear environmental damage treaty.”
In 1986, the IAEA adopted the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident following the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. It establishes a notification system for nuclear accidents from which a release of radioactive material occurs or is likely to occur and which has resulted in or may result in an international transboundary release that could be of radiological safety significance for another state.
The convention provides for countries to report the accident’s time, location, nature, and other data essential to assessing the situation. However, it requires countries to send notifications directly to affected countries and to the IAEA. Similarly, the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) aims to commit contracting parties operating land-based civil nuclear power plants to maintain a high level of safety by establishing fundamental safety principles to which states would subscribe.
The Convention is based on the parties’ common interest in achieving higher levels of safety, to be developed and promoted through regular meetings. It obliges them to submit reports on the implementation of their obligations for “peer review” at IAEA meetings, making it the Convention’s main innovative and dynamic element. It is perhaps time for such conventions to make provisions for more intra-regional dialogue than dealing with a body headquartered thousands of miles away. More importantly, the sense of urgency that applies to a nuclear mishap must also apply to all other climate change matters, especially in times of war.
