On June 13, Israel launched an unprovoked military strike on Iranian territory. Over the following days, it repeatedly targeted Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Nine days later, the United States joined the campaign with Operation Midnight Hammer, striking Iran’s three principal nuclear sites: Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. These raised fears of a colossal nuclear catastrophe, and repercussions beyond the region. 

Following the US strikes, Rafael Mariano Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), convened an emergency board meeting, citing an “urgent situation.” He reiterated a long-standing principle of international law: “Nuclear facilities should never be attacked.”

Now, with US President Donald Trump announcing “an official end to the 12-day war,” a fragile pause has been introduced. But absent a binding peace agreement or accountability mechanisms, the ceasefire may merely delay further escalation, not prevent it. 

The US-Israeli military strategy during the brief but intense conflict carried catastrophic consequences, not least for Israel itself. The potential for widespread contamination, environmental collapse, and regional destabilisation are very real risks. 

Experts warn that the danger hasn’t passed. Iran’s nuclear sites, including nearly 400 kilograms of enriched uranium, remain vulnerable. While buried enrichment facilities such as those at Natanz and Fordow are relatively shielded, a direct hit on a nuclear reactor, particularly Bushehr or the Tehran Nuclear Research Centre, could have far more severe consequences. 

In such cases, local radiation exposure could force mass evacuations, contaminate food supplies, and affect the public health fallout as seen after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster that not just claimed lives but rendered vast areas uninhabitable, forcing out a scarred population. 

Bushehr: Chernobyl of Mideast?

The IAEA or the neighbouring countries like Saudi Arabia haven’t reported any spike in radiation since the most recent US attacks. 

Experts have so far assessed that Israel’s strikes have posed limited contamination risks. But the spectre of a strike on Bushehr, Iran’s only operational nuclear power plant, presents a far graver scenario.

Alexey Likhachev,head of Russia’s nuclear agency Rosatom, has warned that targeting a live reactor such as Bushehr could trigger a catastrophe comparable to Chernobyl.

Bushehr, Iran’s sole functioning nuclear reactor with a 1,000-megawatt capacity, was initially built by German companies in 1975, halted after the 1979 revolution, and later completed by Russian engineers in 2013. Notably, Bushehr has remained outside the West-Iran nuclear dispute due to Russia’s control over its fuel cycle.

President Vladimir Putin recently confirmed that 250 Russian specialists are currently stationed at the plant. 

An Israeli military spokesperson initially claimed that Bushehr had been targeted, only to later retract the assertion. The ambiguity is alarming.

While the world has condemned Russia’s militarisation of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, Israel’s actions in Iran have so far attracted a muted international response.

This apparent double standard raises questions about the consistency of global nuclear policy and the willingness of Western powers to hold allies accountable.

Israel’s shadow nuclear arsenal

Israel has long maintained a policy of nuclear opacity, neither confirming nor denying its possession of nuclear weapons. However, it is widely believed to have an arsenal of between 80 and 400 warheads. As a non-signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), its undeclared arsenal remains a point of international concern.

In 2023, Amichai Eliyahu, a minister in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and member of the far-right Otzma Yehudit party, suggested that dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza was “one of the possibilities.”

Though swiftly disavowed by Israeli officials, the remark underscored a dangerous willingness in some quarters to consider nuclear use, especially under extreme geopolitical conditions as we are experiencing today.

If the worst happens?

 
A nuclear disaster at Bushehr, or anywhere in Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, would reverberate across the Middle East. The human toll of the nuclear fallout could reach into the hundreds of thousands. Environmental fallout would be vast and long-lasting too.

Experts caution about other hazards, such as the accidental release of uranium hexafluoride gas. If this gas comes into contact with water, it can create hydrofluoric acid, a highly toxic substance dangerous to workers and nearby populations.

Neighbouring Gulf states have already expressed alarm as Iran’s only functional nuclear power plant, in Bushehr, is closer to several US-allied Arab capitals than it is to Tehran.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, activated its Emergency Management Centre in Kuwait on Monday to coordinate and implement “necessary preventive measures” at both environmental and radiological levels.

Qatar, like much of the Gulf region, relies entirely on desalinated water, with no rivers or natural reserves to draw from. In the event of a disruption, the country could face a water shortage. Qatar’s prime minister Al-Thani warned that a radioactive leak could contaminate drinking water supplies across the region within 72 hours.

In Oman, residents have begun sharing nuclear emergency preparedness tips via messaging apps, advising people to shelter in enclosed, windowless rooms and seal air vents. Bahrain has reportedly readied 33 emergency shelters and conducted siren tests nationwide.

Beyond the physical risks, there are broader diplomatic and economic implications. 

Targeting nuclear sites despite IAEA oversight could erode trust in the international non-proliferation regime. The non-nuclear states may conclude that cooperation with global watchdogs offers no protection, especially when even permanent members of the UN Security Council disregard those norms. This could weaken long-standing efforts to promote nuclear transparency and restraint. 

The economic fallout would be equally severe. The Strait of Hormuz, through which 26 percent of global oil and a fifth of global LNG flows, lies directly in the firing line. Any disruption could send oil prices skyrocketing, some analysts suggest as high as $350 per barrel, destabilising global markets overnight. 

Israel’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have pushed the region to the brink. Though the ceasefire offers temporary relief, the world cannot afford to return to complacency. The ambiguity, the double standards, and the lack of accountability remain.

We have seen how close the region came to a nuclear nightmare. The risk is still real. Strategic ambiguity must give way to transparency. Aggression must be replaced with diplomacy. And global powers must be held to the same standards they demand of others. International action is no longer optional. It is essential.