The Israel-Iran war has reintroduced nuclear disaster into the global conversation
In less than two months, the world will mark 80 years since the atom bomb was used in warfare for the first – and hopefully last – time. The American devices that were detonated above the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused incalculable human suffering, cutting short more than 200,000 lives.
That demonstration of catastrophic power revealed the risks inherent in nuclear technology. As the war between Israel and Iran continues to escalate, it is deeply worrying to see how talk of radiation leaks and lasting environmental damage has re-entered the global conversation.
Although Israel's unilateral strikes have done considerable damage to Iran's nuclear facilities, there are no confirmed reports of radioactive material escaping confinement. Nevertheless, it is not alarmist to argue that one reckless strike has the potential to endanger many lives.
Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, said as much on Monday, stating that military escalation 'increases the chance of a radiological release with serious consequences for people and the environment'. Several Middle East countries are already taking action, with Iraq's National Nuclear, Radiological, Chemical and Biological Regulatory Authority leading discussions this week about establishing a joint operations room to respond to potential radiation leaks from Iranian nuclear facilities.
As alarming as these developments are, the global community has been here before and has shown that there are ways to prevent warring parties from making a dangerous nuclear misstep. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in southern Ukraine, which was damaged in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, is currently under Russian military control but is inspected by the IAEA, which acts as a vital intermediary in assessing the plant's safety. This is a complex and often difficult process but one that shows the indispensability of international involvement in establishing nuclear safety, even in war zones.
Such guardrails appear to be absent in the Israel-Iran crisis. As missiles rain down on Israeli and Iranian cities, the risk to civilian lives and health from a misjudged strike on a nuclear facility is profound. Iran's people are particularly vulnerable, given Tehran's underinvestment in civilian shelters and warning systems.
International bodies such as the UN and its Security Council need to prove their relevance quickly. The price of inaction is too great to contemplate
The stakes continue to rise. Israel on Thursday claimed to have targeted Iran's Arak nuclear reactor and hit what it said was a nuclear weapons development site in the area of Natanz. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump has yet to rule out direct American involvement in the conflict, something that could conceivably result in 13,000kg bombs being dropped on fortified Iranian nuclear sites.
Given the precariousness of the situation and the collective price people across this region and beyond could pay in the event of a leak, a meltdown or nuclear material falling into the wrong hands, the world needs to see a more effective response from its leading international institutions. Bodies such as the UN and its Security Council need to prove their relevance quickly; the price of inaction is too great to contemplate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Khaleej Times
an hour ago
- Khaleej Times
What are the nuclear contamination risks from Israel's attacks on Iran?
E[Editor's Note: Follow the KT live blog for live updates on the Israel-Iran conflict. ] Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities in its military campaign, but that it also wants to avoid any nuclear disaster in a region that is home to tens of millions of people and produces much of the world's oil. Fears of catastrophe rippled through the Gulf on Thursday when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr on the Gulf coast — home to Iran's only nuclear power station — only to later say the announcement was a mistake. Below are details on the damage caused so far by Israel's attacks, and what experts are saying about the risks of contamination and other disasters. What has Israel hit so far? Israel has announced attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran itself. Israel says it aims to stop Iran building an atom bomb. Iran denies ever seeking one. The international nuclear watchdog IAEA has reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, to the nuclear complex at Isfahan, including the Uranium Conversion Facility, and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran. Israel said on Wednesday it had targeted Arak, also known as Khondab, the location of a partially built heavy-water research reactor, a type that can easily produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make the core of an atom bomb. The IAEA said it had information that the Khondab heavy water research reactor had been hit, but that it was not operational and reported no radiological effects. What fallout risks do these strikes pose? Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool in England who specialises in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, said he is not too concerned about fallout risks from the strikes so far. He noted that the Arak site was not operational while the Natanz facility was underground and no release of radiation was reported. "The issue is controlling what has happened inside that facility, but nuclear facilities are designed for that," he said. "Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments," he said. Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle - the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor - pose primarily chemical, not radiological risks. At enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern. "When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," she said. The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including weather conditions, she added. "In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely." The risk of dispersal is lower for underground facilities. What about nuclear reactors? The major concern would be a strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Richard Wakeford, Honorary Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be "mainly a chemical problem" for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors "is a different story". Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he added. James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said an attack on Bushehr "could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe", but that attacks on enrichment facilities were "unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences". Before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive, he said. "The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic ... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances and it's barely radioactive. So far the radiological consequences of Israel's attacks have been virtually nil," he added, while stating his opposition to Israel's campaign. Why are Gulf states especially worried? For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardising a critical source of desalinated potable water. In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80% of drinking water, while Bahrain became fully reliant on desalinated water in 2016, with 100% of groundwater reserved for contingency plans, according to authorities. Qatar is 100% dependent on desalinated water. In Saudi Arabia, a much larger nation with a greater reserve of natural groundwater, about 50% of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for Statistics. While some Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE have access to more than one sea to draw water from, countries like Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are crowded along the shoreline of the Gulf with no other coastline. "If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, Professor of Engineering and Director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Center. "Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said.
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
Trump resumes visa applications for international students, but with increased vetting
The State Department announced on Wednesday that it is ending the pause on visa applications for foreign students. However, the process, which has been suspended since May, will include intensive online vetting, including requiring applicants to set all of their social media privacy settings to 'public'. The State Department said it needed to 'ensure that those applying for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans and our national interests'. The announcement also asserted that applicants needed to prove that they would 'engage in activities consistent with the terms for their admission', which is being seen as an attempt to deter students from participating in pro-Palestine activism on university campuses in the US. On 25 March, the Trump administration arrested Tufts graduate Rumeysa Ozturk after her profile was posted on a pro-Israel doxxing website. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Ozturk had been targeted for writing an opinion article in a student newspaper the year before, criticising Tufts University's response to a pro-divestment vote from the student senate. Ozturk was released from detention in May, but her detention set a precedent for a larger crackdown by the Trump administration on foreign students. In April, the visas of thousands of international students were revoked seemingly indiscriminately. Several students went into hiding or self-deported over fears that they would be arrested. The Trump administration abruptly backtracked on the decision to revoke visas weeks later. Wednesday's move to review the social media accounts of foreign students is also not the first time the Trump administration has used social media vetting to monitor international students. On 9 April, the Trump administration announced that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be screening the social media accounts of international students at universities affiliated with 'antisemitic activity'. The State Department also reportedly told consulates to prioritise applicants hoping to attend a college where less than 15 percent of the student body were international students. On 28 May, US President Donald Trump asserted that Harvard University should cap international enrollment at 15 percent. Chinese international students Chinese international students have come under particular scrutiny from the Trump administration in recent months. The 270,000 Chinese international students studying in the US make up around a quarter of the 1.1 million international students in the country. On 28 May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the DHS would be working closely with the State Department to 'aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students'. Rubio's statement singled out students 'with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields'. It reflects accusations from the Trump administration that Chinese international students pose a national security risk. On 11 June, Trump backtracked on the plan to revoke visas for Chinese students. He posted that the presence of Chinese international students 'has always been good with me'.
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
Bombing hospitals is a red line - unless Israel is doing it
On Thursday morning, Iranian missiles struck Soroka hospital in Beersheba, triggering expressions of outrage from Israeli officials. National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir likened the Iranian regime to 'Nazis who fire missiles at hospitals, the elderly and children'. President Isaac Herzog evoked imagery of a baby in intensive care and a doctor rushing between beds. Culture Minister Miki Zohar declared on social media that 'only the scum of the earth fires missiles at hospitalized children and elderly people in their sick beds'. The chair of Israel's medical association, Zion Hagay, decried the strike as a war crime and urged the international medical community to condemn it. This swift and unified condemnation by Israeli political and medical leadership underscores a striking contradiction: these same actors not only ignored but openly justified the destruction of Gaza's hospitals over the past two years. Since 7 October 2023, Israeli air strikes and ground invasions have decimated Gaza's healthcare infrastructure. The World Health Organisation has recorded around 700 attacks on healthcare facilities. Major hospitals - al-Shifa, Nasser and the Indonesian hospital, among others - have been besieged, bombed and dismantled. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Israeli officials frame these hospitals as military targets and Hamas 'shields'. Shifa, the largest hospital in Gaza, was placed under siege and then invaded, with the attack hailed by Israeli media as a victory. Meanwhile, the Israeli Medical Association remained silent. In one of its rare statements after a year and a half of Israel's repeated and targeted attacks on hospitals and civilian infrastructure, the association echoed the state's narrative, stating that health facilities and personnel must not be targeted 'unless these are being used as a base for terrorist activities'. Selective moral outrage What is especially striking about this moment is the selective moral outrage from Israeli officials. The same ministers who justified the systematic dismantling of Gaza's healthcare system now describe an attack on an Israeli hospital as a red line, a war crime. Herzog's sentimental imagery of doctors rushing between beds evokes the stark reality in Gaza, where health workers have been shot and shelled in operating rooms, imprisoned, or forced to abandon their patients under fire. International medical voices have played along. While many doctors and health workers have spoken out, many others have remained silent, with no real actions taken to hold Israel accountable. Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war It would be a mistake to treat these official statements as being detached from the public mood in Israel. Most Israelis have defended the destruction of Gaza's healthcare infrastructure. Public discourse has normalised the idea that Palestinian hospitals are legitimate military targets, even celebrating their destruction in some cases. This normalisation is not incidental. It is part of a broader dehumanisation of Palestinians, where even a child under anaesthesia in a Gaza operating room is not seen as a victim, but as collateral damage or a 'shield'. The outrage over Soroka thus reveals a deeper truth: in the eyes of many institutions and audiences, some lives are inherently more valuable than others. When Israeli hospitals are struck, the world responds with empathy and urgency. When Palestinian hospitals are dismantled - patients killed in their beds, doctors arrested mid-surgery - the world hesitates, rationalises or remains silent. How can Palestinian medics 'cooperate' with Israeli health bodies during a genocide? Read More » This is not simply a double standard; it reflects an entrenched hierarchy of whose suffering matters. Israeli leaders speak today of moral lines, of civilians and children, of hospitals as sanctuaries. Yet for nearly two years, those very values have been systematically violated in Gaza, with hardly a whisper of regret. This situation reveals not only hypocrisy but also the cynical confidence that comes with impunity. It reflects how the boundaries of Israeli grief and outrage are drawn narrowly around Jewish Israeli lives, grounded in the certainty that Israel will face no consequences. This moment puts the international system to the test. While some medical and humanitarian groups have expressed concern, most international stakeholders have remained silent in the face of the destruction of Gaza's entire health system. Will medical journals, international associations and UN bodies respond to the attack on an Israeli hospital with the kind of swift condemnation and concrete actions they failed to take when hospitals in Gaza were bombed? The world should have acted when the first operating room was hit in Gaza. It should not take an Israeli facility being targeted for them to remember that hospitals are meant to be protected spaces. If an attack on a hospital is a red line, this must be true for all hospitals, not just those serving Israelis. If international law is to mean anything, it must protect everyone, with the same standards applied to every violation. Anything less is not only hypocrisy; it is complicity. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
