Iran-Israel conflict represents a test of whether international environmental law in wartime has any real force

With the United States and Israel launching coordinated strikes on Iran under what they termed “Operation Roaring Lion” on the night of 28 February 2026, the conflict immediately crossed from a conventional military engagement into an environmental crisis of measurable scale. Within the first 10 days of the war, according to the Conflict and Environmental Observatory, satellite-based fire monitoring systems recorded over 300 incidents, 232 of which have been assessed for their environmental risk, with many clustered around hydrocarbon infrastructure.

By the third week of the war, these strikes had moved decisively beyond conventional strategic installations to directly target energy infrastructure. Notably, around 15–17 March 2026, Israel hit parts of the South Pars Gas Field. This is the world’s largest natural gas field that has triggered fires and raised alarms over massive methane leakage and regional supply disruption. In retaliation, Iran launched missile and drone strikes targeting energy-linked and logistical assets in and around Qatar, further escalating risks to one of the most sensitive hydrocarbon zones globally. These developments have effectively expanded the conflict’s environmental footprint, and it now affects more than a dozen countries. This is happening through air, sea, and energy systems. Amid this escalation, Donald Trump stated on Truth Social that “The United States knew nothing about this particular attack”.

With such facilities hit, the result is not only immediate explosions but prolonged oil fires, release of methane and volatile organic compounds, groundwater contamination, and trans-boundary air pollution. What is more troubling is that this destruction is not occurring in a legal vacuum, but instead it is happening in the presence of some of the most explicit international protections ever codified, now effectively pushed to the margins.

Under the Geneva Conventions, which were later strengthened by Additional Protocol I in 1977, environmental protection during armed conflict was not left ambiguous but addressed. Article 35(3) in the document categorically prohibits methods or means of warfare that are intended, or may be expected, to cause “widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.” This obligation is reinforced through Article 55, requiring parties to actively protect ecosystems and explicitly prohibiting reprisals against the environment. These obligations were drafted in response to the ecological devastation witnessed in wars like Vietnam, with the intent of setting a high legal threshold. However, that very threshold is now being tested.