nuclear-news

Why an attack on Bushehr nuclear plant would be catastrophic for the Gulf

The US and Israel have repeatedly hit the nuclear power plant, raising risks of radioactive contamination far beyond Iran’s borders.

By Al Jazeera Staff, 5 Apr 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/5/why-an-attack-on-bushehr-nuclear-plant-would-be-catastrophic-for-the-gulf

Iran’s only functioning nuclear plant, the Bushehr power plant, has come under repeated attacks in the ongoing Israel and US war on Iran, raising fears of a possible nuclear incident that could prove “catastrophic” across all Gulf countries.

The latest attack on the plant came on Saturday, after missiles hit a location close to the plant, killing one security guard and causing damage to a side building, according to the state-run Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran (AEOI) which has condemned the strike.

In a statement criticising the attack, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed the Bushehr facility had now been “bombed” four times since the war erupted on February 28. He criticised what he said was a “lack of concern” for nuclear safety on the part of the United States and Israel.

On Monday, the AEOI asked the United Nations nuclear oversight body to also explicitly condemn the attacks on Bushehr. The organisation’s head, Mohammad Eslami, said the attacks were “a clear violation of international law and an instance of a war crime” in a letter to Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Nuclear experts and regional authorities have long sounded the alarm over the incredible damage that bombing Bushehr would do, not just to Iran and Iranians, but to neighbouring countries as well.

Here’s what to know about the Bushehr plant and why its safety is paramount:

What is the Bushehr plant?

The Russia-built Bushehr plant is a nuclear power plant located in the coastal city of Bushehr, which has a population of 250,000.

Work on it initially started in 1975 by German companies, but it was eventually finished in 2011 by Russia’s atomic energy ministry. To date, hundreds of Russian personnel are stationed in Bushehr, with some having been evacuated following recent strikes.

It’s the first nuclear power plant in the Middle East, with one operational reactor. Bushehr Unit 1 currently provides about 1,000MW to the national grid. Two additional reactor units are expected to be operational by 2029.

What would happen if Bushehr were attacked?

Iranian officials say Bushehr has now been attacked four times in the course of the US-Israel war on Iran.

That’s separate from an initial strike on February 28, when the US and Israel first launched attacks, sparking off the war. Strikes hit Bushehr city, a few hundred metres from the plant.

A strike on a nuclear reactor or storage pools for used fuel would cause the release of radiological particles, specifically the hazardous isotope Caesium-137, into the atmosphere.

These can be spread far beyond the release point by wind and water and can contaminate food, soil, or drinking water sources for decades. Close exposure to such material would burn the skin and increase cancer risks.

What has the UN nuclear watchdog said about strikes targeting Bushehr?

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations’ atomic watchdog, has been warning against targeting the plant for months.

During Israel’s 12-day war on Iran last year, IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi told the UN Security Council that an Israeli strike on the Bushehr power plant could trigger a regional catastrophe.

Directly hitting the plant, which tonnes of nuclear material, could “result in a very high release of radioactivity”, with “great consequences” beyond Iran’s borders, Grossi warned, calling for “maximum restraint”.

A strike on the lines supplying electricity to Bushehr, which keep the cooling system operating, could cause a reactor meltdown and trigger a radioactive leak, he said. Evacuation orders would have to be issued within several hundred kilometres of the plant, extending to countries outside Iran.

He said authorities would also have to administer iodine to those within the area and potentially restrict food supplies due to possible radioactive contamination. Areas beyond the immediate danger zones would then have to be monitored as well for hundreds of kilometres.

Grossi, in the wake of the latest attack on Saturday, reiterated calls for restraint

What are the risks of water contamination for the Gulf?

There are also fears that damage at Bushehr could contaminate the waters of the entire Gulf region. Radioactive contamination would affect marine life in the area, and the Gulf’s shallowness could see the negative effects remain over a long period, research finds.

It would also affect drinking water supplies. Most Gulf countries lack groundwater and rely heavily on desalination of seawater. But desalination plants are not inherently built to filter radioactive material, and not all plants at the moment have the technologies required.

Alan Eyre of the Middle East Institute told Al Jazeera that academic research has shown that the concentration of radioactive material at Bushehr might not be enough to cause Chornobyl-level disasters, referencing the 1986 tragedy in then-Soviet Ukraine.

But “more serious is the threat of radioactive material in the water because once you get an appreciable amount of radioactivity in the water, that precludes desalination”, he said, explaining that high radioactive material could halt desalination altogether.

Last year, Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani revealed in an interview with right-wing US media personality Tucker Carlson that a hit on the plant would affect “all of us”.

Sheikh Mohammed said that Qatar, which is about 190km (118 miles) south of Iran, had simulated the possible effects of a Bushehr attack. Authorities found that the sea would be “entirely contaminated” and the country would “run out of water in three days”, he said.

“No water, no fish, nothing… no life,” he added.

Is there a law against targeting civilian nuclear facilities?

Yes, there are international frameworks protecting nuclear facilities during conflict. Launching attacks on energy or nuclear facilities while knowing it could cause extensive loss of life and environmental damage is a war crime.

Article 56 (Protocol I) of the Geneva Conventions prevents the targeting of “works and installations containing dangerous forces”, including those containing nuclear material.

Warring parties are also meant to differentiate between facilities serving civilians, as opposed to military targets. The Bushehr plant provides electricity for national use.

The IAEA’s guidelines similarly prohibit indiscriminate targeting of a nuclear facility. They include that countries must avoid physically hitting reactors and stored fuel, that they must ensure the safety of staff, ensure power to the grid to prevent reactor core melt, and have systems in place to monitor radiation.

Has the Western response been muted compared to Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia?

Iran’s Aragchi on Saturday called out Western nations for failing to speak up about the possible dangers of targeting Bushehr in the same way they did over Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant during the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.

“Remember the Western outrage about hostilities near Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine?” he said in a post on X. “Radioactive fallout will end life in GCC capitals, not Tehran,” he added.

Russia attacked the plant in March 2022 using heavy tanks and artillery, causing a major fire. In reaction, the United Kingdom and Ukraine called an emergency UN Security Council meeting.

The UN, the US, the EU, and dozens of other countries issued immediate statements condemning the action. NATO warned that any radioactive fallout reaching a member state would trigger its collective defence mechanism.

French President Emmanuel Macron later spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin about the incident and requested that IAEA staff be allowed to monitor the occupied site.

The European Union has not, in this instance, commented on the attacks on Bushehr. Russia, which has scores of staff there, has meanwhile issued a statement raising concern and “strongly condemning the atrocity”.

What nuclear accidents have happened in the past?

COMMENT. This section of this article is a gross understatement.

See https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/2021/04/05/the-truth-about-fukushima-today-and-the-cover-up-thomas-a-bass/

and

https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/2019/08/18/the-dreadful-truth-of-chernobyl-radiations-health-and-death-toll-is-now-coming-out/

Japan’s Fukushima nuclear reactors melted following an earthquake in 2011.

Some 160,000 residents were evacuated to avoid radiation risks. There was one recorded death from lung cancer as a result of clean-up activities later in 2018. However, the stress of evacuation, trauma, and general disruption at the time of the disaster led to thousands of deaths.

In the April 1986 Chornobyl disaster, a reactor exploded during tests, resulting in a massive explosion that blew off the facility’s heavy roof and resulted in a fire that burned for days.

High levels of radiation were released in the explosion. Some 30 people died at the time of the blast or in the immediate aftermath. About 20,000 others would later develop thyroid cancer, especially children. More than 300,000 were evacuated, and the area is still largely deserted.

April 10, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | MIDDLE EAST, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Unwarranted Iran War: US-China Stakes, Regional Costs, Global Losses

5 April 2026 AIMN Editorial, https://theaimn.net/the-unwarranted-iran-war-us-china-stakes-regional-costs-global-losses/

By Dr Dan Steinbock

After one month of hostilities and no exit plans, the economic and human costs of the US-Israel joint war against Iran are soaring in the region, increasingly global and testing US-China ties.

Originally set for March, the high-stakes summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping was postponed for about “five or six weeks,” due to the U.S. focus on military operations in Iran.

The delay suggests that the Trump administration grossly underestimated Iran’s resilience.

The summit will take place under the shadow of the worst energy crisis since the 1970s.

US-China stakes in the crisis

The crisis itself illustrates the differential stakes the two major powers have in the outcome. US military exposure is high, due to its military bases and fleets in the Gulf, whereas China’s armed presence is minimal. As a result, US strategic position is militarily stretched, whereas China’s is economically exposed.

Furthermore, US energy vulnerability is low, thanks to its domestic production. By contrast, China’s energy exposure is high, due to its import dependency. Accordingly, the US is only moderately exposed to an adverse economic impact in the Gulf, whereas in China that effect will be more substantial.

Even if the Trump administration’s initial “decapitation” strike succeeded tactically, as its proponents argue, it has failed strategically. The Iranian leadership remains intact and the command dispersed.

After one month of the unwarranted war, the U.S. enjoys escalation dominance, but it has been stalemated. US and Israel have air superiority, yet Iran retains strategic denial via missiles, proxies, and Hormuz leverage.

Unwarranted devastation

The crisis has spread across the region and beyond. It has caused a severe disruption to global oil flows, threatening 20% of global consumption – some 20 million barrels per day – that typically passes through Hormuz. Over 94% of normal traffic through Hormuz collapsed already in mid-March.

In one of the largest energy shocks since the 1970s, oil has soared by more than 50%, up to $110-120, with supply down by 11 mb/d (million barrels per day). Global system has suffered a highly adverse impact with airspace closures, rerouted shipping, and data infrastructure hits.

In Iran alone, some 1,900-3,500 people have been killed, with up to 17,000-20,000 wounded. The US-Israel strikes have caused widespread damage, with more than 90,000 civilian installations hit, including schools, hospitals, and residential buildings.

Over 3.2 million people are internally displaced in Iran, primarily fleeing major urban centers. In Lebanon, that figure is over 1-1.2 million; that’s every fifth or sixth Lebanese.

A 2-Month War Scenario

At the end of March, the White House assessed that a mission to pry open Hormuz would push the conflict beyond his timeline of 4-6 weeks. As a result, President Trump reportedly told his aides that he’s willing to end the war without reopening the chokepoint. Let’s presume the report is not fake news and the war will continue toward the end of April.

From the military perspective, the U.S. continues its air and missile war, even if the naval campaign to reopen Hormuz may or may not intensify. Limited ground and Marine deployments may or may not occur. If Americans engage, Houthis in Yemen and Iraqi militias join in the conflict.

Despite Trump’s repeated “mission accomplished” claims, there is no decisive victory. Gradual attrition prevails as Iran’s infrastructure continues to be degraded.

War fatigue rises in Israel, where anti-government demonstrations escalate. Iranian missile barrages have depleted Israel’s stockpile of high-end interceptors, forcing a shift toward rationing and relying on less capable systems.

In the US, the Pentagon continues to downplay the costly toll of Iranian missiles, even though by late March many of the 13 military bases in the region used by US troops were ”all but uninhabitable.”

Oil price stabilizes around $120–150, but remains volatile. The supply disruption is persistent.

Spillovers changing the region

After 1 month of hostilities, every country in the primary battlefield – Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Israel – is likely to suffer an adverse GDP impact of up to -6 to -30%.

In most Gulf states, that impact is already at -3 to -12%, which threatens to defer the ambitious modernization projects in the region for years.

In the proximate Middle East, most economies, including Egypt, Turkey and Jordan, are taking hits of -2 to -6%. When such negative shocks come after two years of regional stabilization by Israel with US support, it leaves these countries vulnerable.

By the end of April, the regional impact is likely to amount to -4% to -7%. Add another month and it will climb to -6% to -12%. Gulf economies alone could see a plunge of -5% to -15% in severe scenarios.

Some are indirectly affected via an inflation shock (Morocco, Tunisia). Big Gulf actors like Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar benefit from price gains, but suffer from disruption.

Several economies – Iraq, Jordan, Gulf states – cope with high stress, due to fiscal strains and security pressures.

Only low-exposure gas exporters like Algeria benefit in the short-term, but no regional state is immune to rising fiscal pressures and geopolitical risks.

If hostilities prove extended, Lebanon and Yemen will teeter at the edge of state or infrastructure breakdown. The same goes for Iran, as long as the White House mistakes PM Netanyahu’s ambitions with US national security.

Strategic options and priorities

The Trump White House is burning almost $1 billion daily in the war. Critics argue that the first month of spending totals close to $37 billion. The administration is seeking $200 billion supplemental funding from the Congress. By contrast, China avoids war costs but must absorb energy and trade shock.

In a 2-month war the US pays in strategy (overextension), whereas China pays in economics (energy shock).

What about the next 4 weeks?

In terms of its strategic options, the US seeks to keep Hormuz partially open. It could release some of its stockpile of crude oil to mitigate economic shocks. It can push non-MENA supply (US shale, Atlantic basin). In the short term, it can tolerate high prices to avoid deeper entanglement.

China, too, can draw down reserves. It can also secure long-term contracts (Russia, Central Asia). It could quietly buy discounted Iranian barrels. And it can engage in limited escort and diplomacy to stabilize energy flows.

Regarding their respective postures in the Middle East, the US is likely to persist in what it calls controlled escalation. China will stress its role as a non-military actor. It willl focus on diplomacy and economic ties. It will position as a mediator and avoid security commitments.

US priority is – or at least should be – not to  get trapped in MENA. By contrast, China’s priority is to let US absorb the security costs, while avoiding sanctions and escalation in bilateral relations.

What if regional war lingers

If diplomacy fails, regional war emerges as an alternative scenario, as hostilities escalate from Iran and Lebanon to Gulf, Iraq, Yemen, even beyond. A sustained closure of Hormuz would amplify the supply shock undermining global prospects.

The number of deaths doubles, regional displacement exceeds 5 million. Brent oil climbs to $120-150, even $150-200 in the worst scenarios. If infrastructure is damaged, far greater losses loom ahead.

Some analysts declare it’s the 1970s déjà vu all over again. They are wrong. Since global economy is today more integrated, the negative ramifications will reverbarate worldwide, not just regionally. Even in the most benign scenario, the world economy will pay a hefty price, through the prolonged high-cost equilibrium.

The Iran crisis has exposed the region’s structural contradiction. On the one hand, the Gulf is an energy superpower (40% global gas reserves). But it is also a highly fragile, chokepoint-dependent system. In this delicate equilibrium, Hormuz holds systemic lever because it controls both oil exports (Gulf states, Iraq, Iran) and liquefied natural gas (Qatar).

The lesson is simple but harsh: With energy disruption everyone loses, as the region morphs from an energy exporter hub to a geopolitical shock epicenter.

April 9, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | MIDDLE EAST, weapons and war | Leave a comment