How Israel’s Strikes Avert Iran’s Environmental Threat

The strikes on Iran have sparked fierce debate, but from Israel’s perspective, the choice was easy: either accept the risks of a nuclear Iran or act decisively to stop it.

The post How Israel’s Strikes Avert Iran’s Environmental Threat appeared first on Green Prophet.

Natanz Nuclear Facility after Israeli strikes

When Israel launched a surprise, precision strike wave against Iran’s nuclear and other essential infrastructure on June 13, 2025, the world’s attention turned not only to the military, political, and human fallout but also to the environmental risks. Iran and its leaders immediately accused Israel of committing environmental war crimes. The supporting evidence for this claim was fires at oil depots, fuel deposits being damaged, and the targeting of nuclear research and development facilities.

From Israel’s perspective, these accusations are just distractions and diversions to ignore a larger truth: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons poses a larger and longer-lasting environmental threat to the Middle East than Israel’s defensive measures ever will.  

Israel has long believed and employed the practice of stopping existential threats before they come to fruition. This doctrine led Israel to conduct strikes, similar to its 2025 attack, on nuclear facilities in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007. While both operations were controversial at the same time, which seems to be the trend with Israel’s attacks, they are now acknowledged to have prevented potentially worse, specifically environmental, outcomes.

In June 2025, Israel used the same logic when it attacked Iran. Nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Arak, among other infrastructure, where uranium enrichment along with other nuclear activities were targeted. Israel’s goal was clear: cripple Iran’s nuclear program before it had operational weapons. For Israeli leaders, the alternative to not attacking was unthinkable. An Iran with nuclear capabilities would not only destabilize regional politics but also risk a major humanitarian and environmental disaster.  

See Related Article: Experts at US-Arab Policy Conference debate Mideast’s future as global energy supplier

Critics of the attack warned and cited instances of radioactive leaks. However, agencies like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed the lack of leaks and are also continuing to measure sites to ensure no radioactive increase. Chemical exposure is the real environmental danger. Chemicals used in enrichment that are not cared for and stored properly can become toxic and can potentially be inhaled or contaminate groundwater. The underground nature of Iran’s nuclear development facilities helped decrease the chance of air exposure. Additionally, Israeli military planners deliberately designed strikes to maximize damage to infrastructure and minimize environmental fallout. Israel’s precision proves that Israel recognizes environmental safety even amid war. 

Israeli Air Force Jets

Iran’s environmental department has accused Israel of targeting fossil-fuel storage, oil depots, industrial plants, and nuclear facilities with the intention of causing environmental destruction. Tehran’s state media highlighted fires at oil depots and refineries, claiming that the attacks and subsequent destruction created toxic air and soil contamination. Israel rejects these accusations. Its view is that the strikes were carefully planned and carried out wit