While the implementation of the recent 14-point Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran remains a work in progress, one omission has attracted growing criticism from environmentalists and ecologists worldwide. Despite pledges of approximately US$300 billion for Iran’s reconstruction, the agreement reportedly contains no dedicated provisions for environmental remediation.
For many experts, this reflects a persistent blind spot in modern diplomacy. Wars are traditionally measured in terms of lives lost, populations displaced, and infrastructure destroyed. Yet a growing body of research argues that armed conflicts also inflict profound ecological damage through toxic pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, habitat destruction, and the contamination of soil and water resources. These impacts can endure long after ceasefires are signed and cities rebuilt, undermining public health, food security, and economic stability for generations.
This broader understanding of conflict is reflected in the terminology increasingly used by international environmental organizations. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described warfare as a form of “sustained ecocide,” emphasizing that environmental destruction often outlasts military operations and can be more expensive to remedy than rebuilding physical infrastructure.
Iran’s experience over the past year illustrates many of these concerns.
One of the most visible environmental consequences of the US-Israeli military campaign has been the damage inflicted on the country’s oil infrastructure. Strikes on more than 30 major oil facilities reportedly triggered massive fires that blanketed densely populated areas, including Tehran, in thick toxic smog. Hydrocarbons and soot released into the atmosphere mixed with moisture, producing what observers described as “black rain” that coated urban areas and settled into surrounding soils.
Environmental specialists warn that such pollution contains hazardous substances including benzene, formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and fine particulate matter. These pollutants can penetrate deep into the respiratory system, aggravating cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. Prolonged exposure has also been linked to increased risks of cancer and neurological disorders.
Beyond air pollution, military operations have left a legacy of soil contamination. The detonation of bombs and missiles, coupled with the accumulation of military debris, has introduced heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, nickel, and chromium into affected areas. These contaminants can remain in soils for decades, gradually entering food chains through crops and livestock.
Water contamination represents another major concern. Explosions, fires, and damaged industrial infrastructure have released hydrocarbons and other pollutants into drainage systems and waterways. Environmental experts fear that contaminants may seep into groundwater reserves, posing long-term risks to drinking water supplies and agricultural productivity.
The environmental damage extends to coastal and marine ecosystems as well. Strikes on naval targets and maritime infrastructure have reportedly damaged oil tankers and coastal facilities, leading to oil spills that threaten fisheries, desalination plants, and sensitive marine habitats such as coral reefs and mangrove ecosystems.
Historical experience suggests that such impacts can persist for decades. During the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, extensive oil pollution in the Persian Gulf contributed to sharp declines in hawksbill and green turtle populations. Studies found traces of oil contamination along Saudi Arabia’s coastline more than a decade after the conflict ended, and scientists estimate that complete ecological recovery may take several decades.
The conflict’s contribution to climate change has also attracted attention. According to an analysis by the Climate and Community Institute, the first 14 days of military operations involving the United States, Israel, and Iran generated more than five million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. That figure exceeds the annual carbon footprint of Iceland and is comparable to Kuwait’s yearly emissions.
Military aircraft, armored vehicles, naval assets, and logistical operations are among the most carbon-intensive activities undertaken by governments. The rapid consumption of fossil fuels during wartime accelerates both regional and global climate pressures, adding another dimension to the environmental costs of conflict.
At the same time, analysts note that environmental responsibility in modern conflicts is rarely one-sided. Iran itself has contributed to ecological damage through missile strikes and military activities elsewhere in the Middle East. In that sense, environmental destruction has become a shared consequence of warfare rather than the exclusive responsibility of any single actor.
Indeed, the environmental degradation witnessed in Iran reflects a broader global pattern. Recent conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, and the Red Sea region have all demonstrated how modern warfare can transform ecosystems, pollute natural resources, and generate massive carbon emissions.
The war in Ukraine offers one of the most extensively documented examples. Since 2022, fighting has damaged protected areas, forests, rivers, and agricultural lands on a vast scale. More than 30 percent of Ukraine’s protected natural areas—over 1.2 million hectares—have reportedly been affected by military activity.
Among the most significant ecological disasters was the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in 2023. The breach triggered catastrophic flooding throughout the lower Dnieper basin, inundating settlements, farmland, and wildlife habitats. At the same time, the draining of the reservoir disrupted aquatic ecosystems and released industrial pollutants and contaminated sediments into the environment. Scientists warn that the ecological consequences may persist for years or even decades.
Military operations have also contaminated groundwater and agricultural soils with heavy metals, fuel residues, and unexploded ordnance. Approximately 30 percent of Ukraine’s territory is believed to be contaminated by landmines and explosive remnants of war.
The challenge of environmental recovery is enormous. Estimates suggest that clearing landmines and unexploded ordnance alone could cost around US$34.6 billion and require decades of sustained effort.
Meanwhile, the environmental consequences of the conflict in Gaza have become increasingly apparent. According to various assessments, the total greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Israeli military campaign and subsequent reconstruction efforts could reach 33.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e).
A United Nations study paints an equally troubling picture of ecological degradation in the territory. Wastewater treatment facilities, sewage systems, and solid waste management infrastructure have largely collapsed. The report indicates that approximately 78 percent of damaged or destroyed structures have generated more than 61 million tonnes of debris, much of it potentially contaminated with asbestos, heavy metals, and unexploded ordnance.
Agriculture has suffered severe losses. The study found that 97 percent of tree crops, 95 percent of shrubland, and 82 percent of annual crops had been destroyed or damaged, significantly undermining local food production. Gaza’s coastal aquifer, already heavily stressed before the conflict, has become increasingly vulnerable. By late 2024, the destruction of sanitation and desalination infrastructure reportedly contributed to the discharge of approximately 280,000 cubic meters of untreated sewage into the Mediterranean Sea each day.
These examples demonstrate that contemporary wars are no longer confined to battlefields. They reshape landscapes, contaminate ecosystems, and create environmental burdens that can outlast the political disputes that triggered them.
Not everyone, however, agrees with the more pessimistic assessments. Some analysts argue that nature possesses remarkable powers of recovery. Among them is Michael Rubin, director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum and a former Pentagon official, who contends that environmental activists often overstate the permanence of wartime damage.
Rubin points to historical examples such as World War I battlefields in France, where ecosystems have gradually recovered despite the scars of conflict. He also notes that some wartime destruction has produced unexpected ecological outcomes. Sunken ships, for example, can become artificial reefs that support marine biodiversity, while abandoned settlements in conflict zones are sometimes reclaimed by forests and wildlife.
Yet environmentalists remain unconvinced. They acknowledge nature’s resilience but argue that ecological recovery often occurs on timescales far longer than political reconstruction. Rebuilding roads, schools, and cities may take years or decades. Restoring a river delta, a coral reef, a wetland, or a mature forest ecosystem can require generations.
For them, this is the central lesson of modern warfare: environmental destruction should not be treated as an unavoidable side effect but as a measurable and accountable consequence of conflict. As peace negotiations and reconstruction packages continue to shape postwar societies, they argue that environmental remediation must become a permanent item on the agenda.
