‘US-Israel war on Iran was unnecessary — its military emissions damage everyone on Earth’

They say the Iran War is over — but is it? Neta Crawford , Professor of International Relations, the University of St Andrews, speaks with Srijana Mitra Das at Times Evoke about war in West Asia — and its global spread:In terms of emissions, what have been the most important impacts of the US-Israel Iran war, locally and globally?■ I think of emissions using both a short term and long-term horizon.

Here, there were immediate emissions arising from the mobilisation of United States-Israel forces and the movement of US aircraft carrier groups into the warzone with the surface ships that go along with these.

Next, aerial bombardment, which is the preferred war method of the United States over putting troops on the ground, caused emissions.

There were emissions also from the militaries of Iran’s neighbours who were targeted by Tehran — each tried to mobilise their own air and ground defences.

Meanwhile, there are large US forces in bases spread across the region — they too have been mobilised and continue to emit when activated.

Iranian conventional forces also used fuel in their attacks on others.In the long run, there will be further emissions driven by this war’s destruction — and these will continue after the bombardment ends.

For example, when the South Pars natural gas facility in Iran was bombed, methane (CH4) — a much more potent greenhouse gas — along with carbon dioxide (CO2) was released.

All bombed fuel facilities in the region resulted in this.

Further, the destruction of housing units, many using domestic fuel, will add to emissions long after the conflict.

The impacts stretch even more long-term — there will now be more military mobilisation in the region.

Globally, over the last many years, we have seen several countries investing increasingly in their military — they buy equipment from the US, etc., and ramp up their own military-industrial production of missiles, anti-aircraft technologies, etc.

All this, from bullets to Patriot missile systems, produces greenhouse gas emissions.

Thus, the short-term to long-run consequences of this war range from getting to the battlefields, the actual fighting and destroying infrastructure holding gas and oil, and then, the long-run militarisation of the region — and the world.

We’ve heard much about the price of oil through this war — and little about its impacts on water, soil, air and non-human species.

Why is it easy to overlook these?■ This is a common cognitive bias which makes us focus only on the immediate and close.

It seems salient to look at the destruction of homes and the killing of people.

That is natural — but when, for instance, a tanker is blown up in the sea and its contents spill out, damaging coastlines and natural habitats, this is seen as a local event with very subtle consequences.

It seems more natural, particularly if you are located far away, to think of how much more you have to pay to fill up your car.

Also, in general, societies do not have a good grasp of their connections to ecosystems.

Our dependence on Earth to retain a habitable temperature, have steady freshwater, give us just enough rain, etc., are things we take for granted — we do not understand how our own actions are pushing us out of the safe zone the planet had for millennia.In truth, today, we are moving out of this fairly rapidly and the biosphere is increasingly stressed.

However, for many people, it’s still difficult to grasp this complexity — but it will become more obvious that we’ve breached the safe zone as we become less able to grow food, access water and keep experiencing much more extreme weather.

How has the Pentagon contributed to emissions which drive climate change?■ US military emissions are linked to the historical transition from animals and wind power providing locomotion for weapons and people in wars since the 19 th century.

When the US military moved to coal to power ships, trains and aircraft, it began a dependence on fossil fuels.

This has grown.

The US military is the most powerful in the world — this is a consequence of a concerted effort to build conventional and nuclear forces that depend on the largest military-industrial base on Earth.Now, in the late 1990s, when it was becoming clear the world was going to both assess emissions by countries and try to reduce them, the US Department of Defense lobbied the Clinton administration to get an exemption for military emissions.

Ultimately, the administration agreed and proposed the Kyoto Protocol negotiations exclude most military emissions from national reporting mechanisms.

That’s been the case until military emissions reporting was made more voluntary by nations in the 2015 Paris Accord.

Sincethen, some countries do occasionally release data on their military emissions — however, for the most part, we don’t know about emissions from defence operations or installations.

Importantly, the US Department of Defense has historically been the nation’s single largest institutional petroleum user — and the US government’s largest emitter.

It is possibly the single largest emitter in the world of greenhouse gases — its emissions in 2024 were around 49 million metric tons CO2 equivalent.

That figure is lower than the 1970s, mostly because of a reduction in Cold War bases, but the US is still an enormous contributor to global military emissions.Given this, alongside the current US administration’s decision to use militarism more actively in geopolitics, what should the world anticipate?■ While US military emissions have come down over time, the overall point is absolutely correct — when the US uses military force, it not only increases its own emissions, it triggers other countries to mobilise with or against it.

For example, China is now increasing its military spending and domestic arms production to balance against US power.

There is no reason for an inevitable war between the United States and China — yet, the preparation for it is part of how miliary emissions bring us closer to tipping points which we should not breach.

The fact that most military emissions are not reported means our understanding of how close we are getting to global warming thresholds through these is inadequate.

We don’t know key data we need to make accurate predictions and attempt proper reductions.

Our societies are not yet aware of the more subtle impacts of war.

Targeting fuel facilities releases methane — but that is difficult to track while being 25 times more potent than CO2 in terms of warming potential.

Wars that target fuel industries are extremely dangerous — their harm ripples across the world.

This is ultimately suicidal — it damages everyone on the planet.

We have great interest thus in urging nations to resolve disputes through diplomacy.

The Iran war was unnecessary and it has unleashed a series of actions which will harm all of us — today, we, living on this planet, facing dangerous climate change, do not have the luxury of optional wars.Catch the latest world news and top headlines.

Download the TOI App.