The US has sent its BIG bombs to Iran to strike three of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including Fordo, its top-secret site buried deep inside a mountain. Ever the bully himself, President Donald J. Trump called upon “Iran, the bully of the Mideast” to “make peace.” Never mind that US Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 provides that Congress alone shall have power “to declare War.” While nearly 200 of Trump’s actions have been overturned in the courts, any legal action about Trump’s attack on Iran will take time. Meanwhile, the costs of war will be brutal and extensive, perhaps none more so than the relatively unspoken military damage to the Earth’s ecosystems — upon which all life on the planet depends.

The Editorial Board of the New York Times called out Trump this morning.

So now we know that President Donald Trump was misdirecting the world — including the US public — when he announced Thursday that he would take up to two weeks to decide whether to bomb Iran.

The Editorial Board also noted that Trump did not define what “peace” would look like as part of a larger strategic plan.

Trump is helping that master of genocide, Bibi Netanyahu, who’s been charged by the International Criminal Court with (alleged) war crimes — starvation as a method of warfare; intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.

Environmental concerns in the Israel-Iran war initially focused on the implications of military strikes against nuclear facilities, leading the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to admonish that “nuclear facilities must never be attacked, regardless of the context or circumstances, as it could harm both people and the environment.” The IAEA reports that electricity infrastructure at the facility (electrical sub-station, main electric power supply building, emergency power supply and back-up generators) has been destroyed. Numerous risks are associated with damage to military facilities and energy sites.

The Conflict and Environmental Observatory (CEO) projects that, in extending the scope of targets, Israel has also broadened the scope of potential environmental risks. Many of the sites attacked to date show evidence of secondary explosions and fires and may have generated secondary pollution. Typical pollutants for such sites include fuels, oils and lubricants, heavy metals and energetic materials, and PFAS and PFOA; fires can add dioxins and furans.

Expanded attack sites could incite major oil fires — whether at refineries or storage sites — and generate a wide range of pollutants, including particulate matter, NOx, nitrous acid, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, VOCs such as formaldehyde, and potentially dioxins, furans, hydrocarbons and PAHs, the CEO continues. These can impact air quality and downwind fallout from plumes and can pollute soils and waters. Fires and damage to gas infrastructure can generate CO2 and lead to methane releases, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 but shorter-lived in the atmosphere.

Areas to watch for additional environmental pollution in the Iran/Israel war include water and sanitation infrastructure and Persian Gulf oil pollution.

Gaza, Ukraine, and the Mounting Costs of War on the Environment

The costs of war are enormous. The cost of damage to critical infrastructure in Gaza was estimated in 2024 already to be around $18.5 billion. In the first six months of the war, Gaza produced more annual emissions than what would be produced in 32 countries. Edouard Beigbeder, UNICEF regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, stated in May that all parties to the Gaza conflict must work to end the violence. “In total, more than 50,000 children have reportedly been killed or injured since October 2023.” Many others have suffered loss of life, homes, and livelihoods.

What hasn’t been reported as thoroughly are the costs of war to the environment in Gaza since 2024. Add to that total the military emissions this weekend in Iran and everywhere else around the globe where warfare is a daily fact of life. Contemporary warfare is one of the most carbon-intensive activities on Earth and accounts for an estimated 5.5% of the world’s annual CO2 emissions.

Enormous and seemingly boundless amounts of oil and other fossil fuels keep the armed forces going while poisoning us with planet-warming carbon dioxide.

Military emissions are the product of fossil fuels to fly planes, launch missiles, drive tanks, propel ships, power supply vehicles, transport troops, test weapons, maintain bases, as the Nation outlined in a May 2025 expose. Add to this list the effects of war like forest fires, power plant SF6 insulating gas that’s released into the atmosphere, and rebuilding infrastructure.

Did you know that military emissions are excluded from limits imposed under the UN Paris climate agreement — with the US being one of the most stringent voices in opposition to mandatory reporting? As a result, these not-at-all-small emissions are mostly absent from Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The military emissions gap has three components.

The first is what governments are obliged to report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The second is how they report their military emissions. The third is what they don’t report.

The lead-up to the COP28 United Nations climate meeting in Dubai did include a very brief mention on a key report about the connection between the military and climate change.

With pressure around the world to increase military spending, such as in Europe due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, turbulent geopolitical settings will only increase those emissions. Militaries can switch to renewable energy sources to reduce their carbon boot print. The US has about 750 military bases around the world; add 50 more for the UK, and we can see the tremendous costs of war financially and in the carbon they produce.

Evan George asks on Legal Planet how we can know the true climate footprint of war: “the combustion of fuels for planes and rockets; the construction of bases; the delivery of aid to displaced people; the leveling of apartments, schools, and hospitals; fires caused by combat; soil erosion and degradation; and the staggering cost of having to rebuild after the bombs stop.”

Conflicts around the world have a profound effect in terms of emissions. The climate movement has increasingly been making links between peace, security, and climate action. The costs of war must continue to be at the top of journalists’ queues to make transparent the inherent environmental dangers in military emissions.