The recent U.S. airstrikes on Iranian military infrastructure have sparked much debate over national security, retaliation, and diplomatic fallout. Alongside these concerns, the environmental costs of conflict are consequences that constitute an important aspect of the conflict’s overall effects. Modern warfare’s environmental impacts, from fuel-driven emissions to ecological destruction, present an often-overlooked set of challenges that are as consequential as the geopolitical conflicts themselves. Ecological destruction, can involve deforestation from military operations, contamination of water sources or degradation of ecosystems caused by chemical warfare. As the world continues to grapple with climate urgency, it’s important to recognize the environmental toll of warfare.
Understanding the Conflict
Strained relations between the United States and Iran have lasted for many years, driven by competition for power in the region and concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Recently, this tension has played out through proxy conflicts in Iraq and Syria, cyberattacks, and focused military action. On June 21, 2025, the U.S. targeted three Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz. The strike, referred to as “Operation Midnight Hammer”, utilized 125 U.S. military aircraft, among them B-2 stealth bombers, along with cruise missiles launched from a submarine. The U.S. shares its airstrikes on Iranian-backed forces are meant to protect American troops and allies, stop attacks, and weaken Iran’s military by “obliterating” Iran’s nuclear capabilities. These airstrikes are intended to be precise, but they also contribute to broader regional tensions and environmental consequences.
Carbon Emissions from Military Operations
A study done by scientists for Global Responsibility and the Conflict and Environment Observatory highlights that militaries are responsible for 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Even more so, since 2001, more than 1.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases have been produced by global militaries. These immense carbon outputs stem from jet fuel consumption by military aircraft, ground vehicle use, and naval operations. In the case of recent airstrikes in Iran, each mission contributes additional greenhouse gases, compounding the military’s overall climate impact.
Infrastructure Destruction and Pollution
Destruction of the military and industrial facilities, such as missile factories or nuclear sites, can result in fires, chemical leaks, or the release of toxic pollutants. Local reports and satellite imagery from Isfahan and Natanz confirmed heavy smoke plumes and surface-level contamination near the impact zone. This contamination included chemical residues, fuel runoff and scattered debris. This is an intensifying ecological strain in one of the most water-stressed regions in the Middle East. It is to be noted that Iran’s missiles use toxic liquid fuels like unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine and red fuming nitric acid, both of which are highly corrosive, posing a serious risk to human health and the environment if released. These fuels are hard to manage and have caused environmental harm in conflict zones such as Afghanistan, Libya, and Ukraine. The combined effects of infrastructure damage and hazardous materials release pose ongoing risks to local ecosystems and public health in the region.
Local Environmental Stress in Iran
The U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear sites did not cause widespread radioactive leaks since uranium enrichment isn’t as dangerous as a nuclear reactor meltdown. However, the bombings released harmful chemicals used in the enrichment process, like uranium hexafluoride and hydrogen fluoride, which are toxic when inhaled or touched. These chemicals likely spread around the strike areas, polluting the air and soil and adding to local environmental problems. While there were no reports of increased radiation outside the sites, it’s hard to know the full damage because independent checks are limited. The International Atomic Energy Agency is still monitoring the sites, but the ongoing conflict makes future risks unclear.
Long-term Impacts
At the current moment, there is still a lot of uncertainty surrounding the potential long-term environmental impacts. The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not yet been able to independently assess the full impact of the strikes, particularly at the underground enrichment facility in Fordow. Preliminary concerns point to potential radioactive and chemical contamination at multiple targeted sites. While no heightened radiation levels have been detected beyond the facility boundaries, the possibility of internal leakage raises serious health and environmental concerns. With IAEA inspectors currently barred from accessing the damaged nuclear plants, the long-term risks remain uncertain. The April explosion in Bandar Abbas showed what this kind of destruction can cause. Toxic smoke released high levels of soot, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide into the air. Pollutants also settled into the soil, reducing fertility and making recovery difficult for decades. The recent U.S. airstrikes on missile and nuclear infrastructure raise similar environmental concerns.
Climate Accountability in Armed Conflict
Military actions, like airstrikes, can cause environmental damage that goes beyond the immediate effects on the battlefield. Environmental groups and policymakers are increasingly advocating for the inclusion of military emissions in global climate accounting to ensure that all sectors contribute equitably to emission reduction efforts. Addressing this gap is crucial for achieving comprehensive climate goals and holding all sectors accountable for their carbon emissions and environmental impact towards the climate crisis.